Literacy

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proportion of the population of the United Kingdom is illiterate.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, last October, the department published the Skills for Life survey, which includes a survey of literacy skills. It shows that 5.2 million adults in England—16 per cent—have literacy skills below level 1; that is, lower than grade D to G at GCSE. The Government's Skills for Life strategy has already helped around 500,000 people to improve their literacy, numeracy or language skills and is working to improve the skills of 1.5 million adults by 2007.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Is she aware that, in one area of the United Kingdom, jobseeker's allowance may be withheld from unemployed people who refuse to take courses in literacy and numeracy and that, in another, those who take such courses are to be offered a monetary reward? Does my noble friend agree that it is essential that 14 year-olds taking two days off from school each week to take up apprenticeships should first be literate and numerate?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is important for all our 14 year-olds to be literate and numerate. It is also important that we continue with a strategy to allow people to gain those skills at any point in life.
	My noble friend is also right to say that the Department for Work and Pensions has a scheme that allows for individuals to be given an extra £10, in addition to their training allowance, to take up basic skills training and a £100 incentive payment, if they gain qualifications. There are also 12 pilot schemes examining the impact that the threat of benefit sanctions could have in ensuring that people take up the opportunity to get basic skills.

Lord Renton: My Lords, what proportion of the unfortunately large total of illiterate people are immigrants or the offspring of immigrants?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that specific figure. However, in considering the issue of those who are most in need of basic literacy and numeracy skills, we have targeted particular groups of people. Among those are people who do not have English as a first language and those who have other issues relating to their ability to speak English.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the key issues is that children leaving primary school should have a sufficiently high level of literacy and numeracy to cope with the secondary curriculum? What percentage of children have that standard at that stage of their education? Given the failure to improve literacy standards at key stage 2 over the past two years, how confident is the Minister that further improvement will be achieved?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the latest figures are that 73 per cent of 11 year-olds achieved what we call level 4 at key stage 2 in mathematics and 75 per cent in English. That answers the noble Baroness's point about those able to access the secondary curriculum.
	It is important that we do all that we can to continue to increase those figures. In part, it is about addressing the needs of children who have some form of special educational need and working closely with them. There is a large group of children at level 3, just below level 4. If we focus on them and do additional work with them—there is a great deal in the primary strategy on that—I am sure that we can help to ensure that they get an enriched secondary curriculum by being able to get access to it through literacy and numeracy.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, has the Minister any figures for the percentage of looked-after children who are illiterate, given that only 1 per cent, I believe, leave care with any qualifications? Might not that be a sensible area for urgent attention?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly says, the educational achievement of looked-after children is an area that there is a great need to improve. In Every Child Matters, we specifically identified the need to ensure that our looked-after children had a good education and good opportunities. The noble Baroness is right: it should be a focal point of our work.

Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are 30,000 illiterate prisoners in England and Wales? The Shannon Trust has a successful scheme in which literate prisoners sponsor illiterate prisoners and teach them to read. Will the Government adopt that most imaginative idea and put it into practice throughout the prison system?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend: it is an important issue. About 50 per cent of offenders have low reading skills; 65 per cent have poor numeracy skills; and 80 per cent have poor writing skills. The Shannon Trust is a good example of peer mentoring, enabling those in prison who have a good education to pass on their skills to those who would benefit from literacy and numeracy. Such peer work is important, and I support it wholeheartedly.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important that schools go beyond the technical skills of reading, which have been rather over-emphasised in the literacy hour in primary schools? Schools should work to instil an enjoyment of reading that will ensure that children go on reading throughout their schooling and continue to do so in their adult life.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly. It is very important to instil the love of learning and the love of reading in every child. However, without the technical skills, it is not possible.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am aware that the subject of education is devolved, but is there any reason why the Minister cannot answer the Question and tell us what the percentage of illiteracy is in Scotland? I do not think the Scottish Parliament would mind, particularly if the figure were better.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I asked the question myself and the answer is that as it is a devolved matter, it is inappropriate for me to answer it. I am very happy, of course, to ask colleagues if they will provide the figures for the noble Lord, and put a copy in the Library.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords—

Lord Blaker: My Lords—

The Earl of Listowel: I am sorry, my Lords, but I think it is the turn of this side.

Noble Lords: Cross Bench!

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister say what role increasing mainstream school inclusion has on improving literacy rates, particularly literacy rates for children in public care, to which my noble friend referred earlier? Is the Minister aware that 67 per cent of children from Shaftesbury Homes and Arethusa received five GCSEs last year and that in 2001 only 7 per cent of children in residential care gained five GCSEs? That is an outstanding performance by Shaftesbury Homes and Arethusa. However, it had to start legal proceedings in seven cases against schools in order to achieve that very welcome outcome.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to Shaftesbury Homes, although I do not know about the individual cases. It is very important to ensure that looked-after children have continuity of education, high-quality corporate parenting and real opportunity.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords—

Lord Blaker: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, can we take a very quick question from the noble Lord, Lord Blaker?

Lord Blaker: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many people in this country are innumerate and whether they include the staff of the Department of Health? That department appears to have briefed a government spokesman last week to the effect that there are 900,000 obese people in this country receiving benefits and that the benefits amount to £70 million a week, whereas a subsequent statement said that the true figure is 900 people and that the benefits amount to £70,000 a week.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the number of adults who have numeracy skills below level 1—below the level I described in my Answer—is 15 million.

Combined Heat and Power

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest in the small-scale generation of electricity.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the prospects of achieving 10 gigawatts of combined heat and power by 2010.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, before I answer this Question, I am reliably informed that today is the birthday of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I am sure he will ask this Question on subsequent birthdays up to 2010.
	Although this is a challenging target, 10 gigawatts remains achievable, and we will set out our full range of measures in the Government's strategy for CHP to 2010, which we intend to publish after the Easter Recess.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about my birthday. I shall certainly continue to ask Questions about CHP until the year 2010 and well beyond.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Ezra: My Lords, coming back to the present, is it not regrettable that in spite of the obvious benefits of combined heat and power in greater efficiency and reduced emissions compared with normal generation, the target set for the year 2000 of 5,000 megawatts, or 5 gigawatts, has still not yet been achieved? Is it not a fact that three or four reports prepared by well known economic establishments have estimated that there will be a shortfall by 2010 of some 2 to 3 gigawatts? In those circumstances, should the noble Lord not indicate to us in advance of what the Government may or may not say in due course what measures they intend to take to put this matter right, bearing in mind that at the recent discussions on the subject at the Committee stage of the Energy Bill, a number of proposals put forward by these Benches and the Conservative Benches were all turned down by the noble Lord? Is it not time that the Government came forward with their own proposals?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that the achievement on CHP has not been as rapid as originally hoped, although the latest estimates for 2010 indicate a central achievement of 8.1 gigawatts. Further measures, including those which were announced in the White Paper, in particular the emissions trading scheme, will raise that level further and make it closer to the 10 gigawatts target. It is still a difficult target and the Government may need to introduce further measures, some of which may well be referred to in the statement after Easter that I mentioned.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, how many national health hospitals have introduced CHP? When asking the Minister a question on this subject on a previous occasion, I mentioned that some have. Has there been an increase in the number of hospitals introducing CHP, given the great financial saving that will result for the National Health Service as well as the provision of extra power?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer that question in numerical terms. I am aware that at least two hospital complexes in the past few years have introduced CHP. There is general encouragement of the National Health Service, as in other parts of government, to look positively at CHP installations.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the energy forum of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Development Agency. Will my noble friend confirm that a major combined heat and power scheme is due to come onstream on Humberside next year? Further to the previous question, what is the Government's view on micro combined heat and power schemes, not only in hospitals but in commercial, industrial and, indeed, domestic, use?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, micro CHP is an exciting new technology that the Government wish to encourage. Field trials and tests are being carried out and we believe that micro CHP could, towards the end of the decade, make a significant contribution to the achievement of the target. On the major CHP installation coming on stream in the course of the coming year, the Conoco complex at Immingham will greatly raise these figures, which will therefore look better this time next year. However, there is still a challenging target to be met.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, what is the present output of CHP to the grid? In Energy 68, it is estimated that, in 2010, 20 gigawatts will be required and 6.5 gigawatts will be required for wind energy. Only 0.6 gigawatts of wind energy is available now, so it must be increased by the power of 10. What is the ratio for CHP? Is the Minister sure us that planning permission will be granted, even for the schemes that are the basis of Energy 68 programmes?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the wind energy ratio of current generation compared with where we expect it to be in 2010 is somewhat higher than that for CHP—roughly a trebling of CHP generation by 2010. The noble Lord referred to planning permission. Although there have been some minor hiccups on CHP, planning permission for CHP installations has not generally been a problem. However, it is a live issue in some parts of the country in relation to wind farms.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on the Government's targets for their own estate. He will remember that, during the passage of the Sustainable Energy Bill, the Government set targets for their own estate—the only target in the Bill. Why, since that time, has all the National Health Service estate been taken out of the government estate for the purposes of that Bill? How big is that proportion of the total that the Government promised in the Bill?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the references in the energy White Paper and in the discussions on the Sustainable Energy Bill were to the central government estate. As the noble Baroness will know, the National Health Service is, by and large, an NHS trust rather than part of the central government estate. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I indicated that the NHS itself wishes to encourage the use of CHP, but that does not alter the commitment that we made in relation to the central government estate during deliberations on the Sustainable Energy Bill. The target has been announced and will no doubt be mentioned in the statement to which I referred in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.

Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, what arrangements are the Government making to allow for the CHP installations, which are small and will probably connect to the distribution system rather than the transmission system, sometimes to put power in and sometimes to take power out? That has not been the case in the distribution system in the past.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that it is important that CHP installations, which are primarily for local use, also have additional power to feed into the grid either through transmission or distribution. It is true that, at one point, the regulations were hostile and charges were a disincentive to CHP. The subsequent modifications that Ofgem has made in the regulations make them more neutral and therefore more favourable to CHP than was the case a couple of years ago. We need to see the full effect of those changes in encouraging such use of CHP.

EU Enlargement: Free Movement of Workers

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they now have for operating transitional restrictions on migrants from those nation states due to join the European Union on 1 May 2004, as permitted under the European Union (Accessions) Act 2003.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will make a Statement at half-past three this afternoon in another place on EU enlargement: the free movement of workers. In accordance with convention, I do not feel that it would be proper to respond to the Question put by the noble Lord. Of course, I will be happy to answer any questions raised by your Lordships when I repeat the Statement for the benefit of this House later this afternoon.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I appreciate that—by coincidence, I am sure—there is a sudden Statement from the Government on this issue this afternoon. However, will the Minister explain before we hear the Statement why there has been this abrupt change of policy? Is it because all the other EU member states except Ireland have now introduced sensible transitional restrictions to manage this issue in a careful and sensitive way, as they are allowed to do under the EU accession treaty? Perhaps the Government somehow forgot to join in this initiative and have got left behind. Is that the problem?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, when Portugal, France and Greece joined the European Community, there was no mass movement of people from those countries to the United Kingdom? Will she also confirm that migrants take less out of social security and contribute more—to the tune of about £2.4 billion—to the British economy? Therefore, there is no need for a knee-jerk reaction of introducing legislation to prohibit the entry of people.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to confirm those two statements. I will amplify any further answer when I have the pleasure of delighting your Lordships in about half an hour's time on this self-same issue.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, when I raised this issue a year ago, she said that there was no problem? Will she also confirm that, on behalf of the Home Office, an agency has been placing advertisements in Slovak newspapers telling people that benefits here are not so wonderful and that life is not paved with gold?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is all true.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister also recall that, in 1990, scare stories appeared in the British press and other newspapers predicting that somewhere between 5 million and 25 million people would flood from eastern Europe into western Europe? That did not happen either. We are conscious that some aspects of the British press have been running scare stories about this issue. Can we be assured that her Majesty's Government will stand up to inaccuracies reported in the tabloid press with the same vigour with which they stand up to the BBC?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I make no comment about the noble Lord's last point, but there has been no influx as was predicted. I will be happy to amplify these answers more fully at the proper time later this afternoon.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, since the Government say that they do not know how many migrants there are in this country—which appears to be the case—how can the Minister be so sure about the economic contribution that they make and the economic costs that are incurred?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have data, and information has been extracted from that data. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, accurately reflected the situation. I am looking forward with great anticipation to giving the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, further clarity in due course.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the Government have been saying in the press that they intend to rely on the habitual residence test. Does the Minister appreciate that a key principle of European law is that one cannot discriminate between the nationals of one European country and another? Between now and half-past three, will she investigate how the Government can use the habitual residence test in this inherently discriminatory way? In particular, will she consult the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on the implications of the Swaddling case in the European Court of Justice and tell us at half-past three what she will do about it?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's confidence that I could do all that in half an hour.

EU Funding

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their view of the European Commission's plans to increase European Union spending by 25 per cent.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government do not support the Commission's proposals for large increases in EU budget expenditure over the period 2007–13, which the Commission presented on 10 February. The Prime Minister has made clear, in a joint letter sent to Commission President, Mr Prodi, on 15 December 2003, along with the heads of government of Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, that average expenditure during the next financial perspective should be stabilised at around current expenditure levels and should not exceed 1 per cent of EU gross national income.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, which was encouraging. I have one specific question for him. Will he confirm that the Government will not allow the UK's rebate, which was so heroically negotiated by my noble friend Lady Thatcher some 20 years ago, to be reduced or limited, in the next EU budget round?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can confirm that position. As the noble Baroness knows, the UK gets the rebate because of its disproportionately low share in the receipts—about half the EU average—and above average contributions. We intend to defend that position.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the common agricultural policy was reformed—which so many of us have asked for, including noble Lords opposite—the rebate itself would disappear? It is as a consequence of that that we have a rebate.
	In relation to the Question, does my noble friend also agree that in the Convention on the Future of Europe, the working group on future financing of the European Union specifically rejected the proposal to increase the budget, having noted that the present budget is substantially below the present budget ceiling?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for both his helpful contributions. He is of course right that a principle area for reform is certainly the common agricultural policy, and he is also right in saying that it helps to create the situation in which we disproportionately contribute more and receive less. He is also right in saying that there is widespread anxiety throughout Europe, as reflected by the letter from the heads of government, that the Commission is proposing too large an increase in its future budget.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, when can we expect for debate the Government's response to the Commission paper, which is after all the first shot in negotiations on the next budgetary package from 2007–13? Does the Minister accept that some of the proposals in the Commission's paper—for example, that a larger share of the budget must go on external relations and that a great deal more should be spent on innovation and less on agriculture—are precisely the sort of thing that British governments should be in favour of?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that this is very much the opening skirmish in a protracted debate. The decisions do not have to be taken until the middle of next year. He is right that there are some sensible proposals from the Commission, but what stands out is a very substantial demand for an increase in budget, which we do not support while other crucial features of the EU budget remain unreformed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the assurance has been given that the Government would not agree to an increase in the 1 per cent ceiling and that they will resist—to the last, I hope—any suggestion that we should lose our rebate, which amounts to £3,600 million a year. Those assurances are welcome. However, can I have the further assurance that the Government will not yield to the blandishments or coercion of other member states, as they apparently have done over the European constitution?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, true to form, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, adds a further demand to his approval of the position that the Government have already taken up in two instances. However, he will recognise that when a letter is sent on behalf of the Prime Minister and other heads of state of significant countries in Europe, one can scarcely look on such a body of people, who represent such a substantial interest in Europe, as being subject to coercion by anyone.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, given the facts of the matter—that at the end of the day the balance of spending and the strategic direction of the budget will largely be determined by the Council of Ministers—why do Her Majesty's Government continue to be agnostic, or perhaps just undecided, on the future of voting inside the EU?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government are never agnostic, as they always think deeply about their position, on the basis of known facts. However, it is clearly important that crucial issues with regard to constitutional change are clarified. When they are, the Government will announce their position.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, my brief business statement has been heavily trailed, but I shall make it none the less. With permission, later this afternoon—probably after the first group of amendments on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill—my noble friend Lady Scotland will repeat a Statement on EU Enlargement: Free Movement of Workers.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on 4 March to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Scotland of Asthal to be taken as first business.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidation Bills

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, that, pursuant to Standing Order 52, the following Lords be appointed to join with a committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills: L. Acton, L. Brightman, L. Campbell of Alloway, L. Christopher, V. Colville of Culross, E. Dundee, B. Fookes, L. Janner of Braunstone, B. Mallalieu, L. Phillips of Sudbury, L. Razzall, L. Rodger of Earlsferry;
	That the committee have the power to agree with the committee of the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee shall, if the committee think fit, be printed; and
	That a message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Monday 1 March at half-past four o'clock.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, while I welcome the appointment of 12 experienced Members of your Lordships' House to the committee, I ask the Lord Chancellor to bear in mind that there is a greater need for consolidation of statutes now than for many years, especially those statutes relating to criminal justice, of which there are about a dozen amending statutes. Will he therefore advise the Joint Committee, when it is appointed, of the need to get down to the consolidation work, especially in relation to criminal justice Acts?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for that intervention. Of course, I shall pass on to the committee the points that he made. I also thoroughly agree with what he said in relation to the need to consolidation being urgent now and far more urgent than before.
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 40, Schedule 1, Clauses 41 to 54, Schedule 2, Clauses 55 to 78, Schedule 3, Clauses 79 to 88, Schedule 4, Clause 89 Schedule 5, Clauses 90 to 117, Schedules 6 and 7, Clause 118, Schedule 8, Clause 119, Schedule 9, Clauses 120 to 124.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Piloting conduct at European and local elections]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
	"(5) An order under this section may only specify—
	(a) the North East;
	(b) the East Midlands; and
	(c) any local authorities within those electoral regions which are due to hold elections on the same date."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 3. Those amendments are included in a very large group of amendments that are being introduced by the Government. We have been backwards and forwards over this issue in Committee. Subsequently, I had a meeting with the Minister and I thank him for giving us the opportunity for further discussion. However, I do not think it will come as any great surprise to him that we are not convinced by the arguments that he has advocated for piloting in four regions.
	We believe that there are fundamental reasons why we should stand firm on this point. First, we think that it is irresponsible to hold a pilot scheme in nearly half of all the regions that will be holding combined European parliamentary and local elections in June. They form a substantial part of the electorate of England and therefore it can only tendentiously be described as a "pilot". Pilot schemes are designed to generate evidence on a system of voting that is new and that is by no means guaranteed as secure. We have conceded that there may be merit in trialling all-postal voting on a regional basis in the combined regions. It has already been trialled on a local basis in other schemes. However, we draw the line at a trial in four regions.
	Secondly, the Government are disregarding the evidence contained in the Electoral Commission's report. Its conclusion was that only two regions—the north-east and the east Midlands—could be recommended as ready and able to undertake these schemes. I asked why the Government intend to ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission and have received no satisfactory answer from the Minister. Extensive research has been carried out. The Electoral Commission is impartial. It is an independent body set up by the Government to advise them and it is now deemed to be expert in electoral matters. I am sure that other noble Lords will have received a letter from the Electoral Commission from which it is interesting to note that it says that it has been involved in no further discussions with the two extra regions proposed by the Government:
	"The Commission was unable to make a positive recommendation in respect of those regions having assessed their suitability against the criteria we applied . . . We have not ourselves been involved in further discussions".
	Then how have the Government assessed the suitability of the two extra regions?
	Does the Minister, or his Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, believe that they know better than the commission? I think that the answer must be that they clearly do. In Committee, in relation to the Electoral Commission's advice, the Minister said:
	"It has given us advice. We have not asked it to make the decision but to investigate the issues and give its analysis and reasons, and what underpinned its reasons. We have asked it to investigate, appraise and advise, not to decide".—[Official Report, 26/01/04; col. GC 18.]
	I find this baffling. We have moved from a situation where the Government asked the Electoral Commission to put forward up to three best regions for piloting. The Electoral Commission said that it could only positively recommend two regions. Now there are four regions. The two additional regions are Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west where there were issues with the unwillingness of the returning officers and the complex nature of some of the elections. They still remain. I know that from information that I have received since Committee. The strongest possible objections remain to all-postal pilots in these regions. That view has been made extremely clear to the Government, including by a motion passed by Bradford City Council in October of last year saying that it was opposed to the idea of piloting in these combined elections.
	There is deep concern about fraud and security issues. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew our attention to the problems experienced in previous piloting. It is against this background that the Government are proposing to bludgeon two unwilling regions, and many unwilling local authority chief executives, into running a pilot vote.
	The Minister made it clear that he does not believe that the lack of enthusiasm of returning officers, or the possibility of malpractice, should be impediments to piloting the all-postal scheme. The Electoral Commission clearly thought that they should. Our faith rests in the experts and we remain adamant that only the two original regions should pilot the election: the north-east and the east Midlands.
	In response to our intention to limit the pilot to only these two regions, the Minister commented:
	"Otherwise we are saying that we shall never have postal voting on a wider scale than in those areas where people are interested".—[Official Report, 26/1/04; col. GC 20.]
	We do not believe this to be the case. These are pilot elections, trial schemes and experimentation. It seems sensible to have them in regions that are confident about using the all-postal system and that want to give it a try. If these prove successful, as I hope that they will, next time round it is likely that there will be more enthusiasm and confidence from other returning officers and the all-postal system can be widened to include more regions. Of course, that is unless the Government are going to try to bounce all-postal elections on other elections.
	Despite what the Minister may feel about this, we are not trying to cause trouble. We feel that the Government are taking a big risk that is not justifiable in terms of a possible increase in turnout. We need to balance innovation against security and the safety of our democratic process.
	Finally, I shall say a brief word about the detail of the two amendments that we have tabled. After our welcome meeting with the Minister, we thought that it was important to signal immediately our continued opposition to any more than two regions being on the face of the Bill and to do so by tabling the old amendment that we put down to Clause 1 in Committee. This is Amendment No. 1. However, we are willing to accept the Minister's argument that, if we decide to move on Amendment No. 1, it would mean that it would fall outside the scope of the restructuring of the Bill that the Minister is trying to do, which is to enable just one order to be laid, rather than two. Therefore, we have now put forward Amendment No. 3. If, having heard what the Minister has to say, I believe it to be necessary, that will be the amendment that we shall pursue. I beg to move.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment No. 3. A number of your Lordships have expressed considerable reservations about all-postal voting—or compulsory voting by post, as I prefer to call it. I shall not dwell in detail on all those reservations but they fall into three broad areas. First, there are concerns about lack of secrecy and privacy in voting, which some people believe undermine the basic principles of the Secret Ballot Act of 1872. Secondly, there are considerable concerns about potential fraud with all-postal voting, particularly in relation to homes in multi-occupation where people are not at all sure who will receive the ballot papers that are put through the letter box and who will return them.
	There are also concerns about the timing of all-postal voting mechanisms. We now understand that in these all-postal voting pilots in June, the ballot papers will be delivered between 25 and 29 May, some two weeks before the official polling day and two weeks before many people have made up their minds, considered the arguments put by the parties, seen the television news, and so on. I am concerned about people voting so far ahead of proper examination of the issues.
	Notwithstanding all those reservations about some of the problems associated with postal voting, it seems to me right to consider that there should be an element of pilot experiments to see whether the concerns are valid. So perhaps the idea of having the two pilots in the north-east region and the east Midlands should be supported. However, I believe that no case whatever has been made for having more than two experiments. If there is a case for experimentation, why should it occur in more than two regions?
	The Government have given us no explanation for their fundamental change of heart on the issue. Only a few months ago, their view was that there should be no all-postal pilot experiments and that the only experiment this June should be the combining of the local and the European elections. The Government's position then changed from no all-postal pilots to three all-postal pilots. They had to ask the independent Electoral Commission, given its expertise and various criteria, to recommend three regions for such experimentation. The Electoral Commission said that it could positively support only a proposal for two regions and that only that would be suitable. We therefore assumed that only two pilots would go forward. Now, however, the Government seem to be opting for four pilots. I believe that operating four pilots—effectively four of the eight regions in England, and almost half the local authorities that will vote in June—amounts to rolling out all-postal voting rather than "experimenting" with it. It is a fundamental change to voting mechanisms.
	Of course, there is time for progress in deciding how voting mechanisms should be changed. However, if changes are to be made, they should not be made unilaterally by one party which imposes change on all the other parties without the support of the independent Electoral Commission—which itself was established to avoid accusations that parties were changing voting systems for purely partisan advantage.
	The idea of four pilot regions plainly does not have the support of the Electoral Commission. I believe that the problems are such that it would be wrong to subject half of England and nearly half of local authorities to all-postal voting methods. A few hundred votes may not seem terribly important in European elections in which millions of votes are cast. However, a few hundred votes may make a great difference in many local authorities and in many wards. The problems associated with all-postal voting often occur in inner-city areas and houses in multiple occupation. I believe that a too widespread use of all-postal voting could cause a false result and make the difference in many areas.
	There is a strong feeling that this is not just about legitimate experimentation; two pilots would have been sufficient to accomplish that. There is a strong suspicion that such widespread all-postal voting has been proposed to ensure that the overall national result is more palatable to the Government. The Government are rolling out compulsory postal voting and not explaining the necessity for four postal pilots, all of which are concentrated in areas where the Labour Party is fearful about turnout among its traditional supporters. They seem to be interfering in the mechanism as they should not be doing, in a way which the Electoral Commission was set up to avoid.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. In their speeches at earlier stages of the Bill, they trenchantly set out—as they have done again today—the arguments why we should be cautious in proceeding to "roll out"—as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, described it—these arrangements in many parts of the country.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was given his first political appointment in 1983 when he acted as my agent in the general election of that year. Since then I have watched with considerable pleasure as he has honed his formidable skills and won just acclaim as one of the country's most knowledgeable commentators on electoral practice. I think that the House would do well to listen to the caution he urged in his remarks today. Those remarks are based on real practical experience of how elections are run.
	Over the 25 years that I represented people in Liverpool both as a city councillor and as a Member of Parliament—and it is a city that the Minister knows very well—the election statistic that always interested me most after the size of the majority was the election turnout. In often keenly fought contests, the turnout in that constituency was always the highest in Liverpool and among the highest on Merseyside. Over the past decade, however, it has depressed and disturbed me to see declining turnouts and large-scale absenteeism at the polls. In one ward by-election in Liverpool, turnout was a paltry 6 per cent. When 94 per cent of the electorate decide to absent themselves from voting, grave doubt is cast on the legitimacy of the election and on our institutions as well. Where here is an electoral mandate? Where here is a commitment to civil society?
	Nor was that an aberration. City-wide turnout in local elections in recent years has rarely seen more than one in five voting, and in the most recent general election the Liverpool Riverside constituency achieved one of the lowest turnouts in the UK, with a turnout of just 34.8 per cent. Voter alienation manifests itself in other ways as well—through, for instance, support for groups such as the British Movement in the Lancashire town of Burnley.
	The answer to this alienation is to re-engage with the voters. The absence of direct political contact on a regular face-to-face, person-to-person basis is one of the reasons why voters have switched off. Instead of re-engagement, however, we tend to try to dream up ever more novel ways to enable a shrinking group of people to cast their votes. While I am not intrinsically opposed to the extension of postal voting, I am seriously concerned that this debate is simply a distraction from the more fundamental question of why people are disengaging from politics and from their civic duty to vote. I am also extremely worried that the way in which this measure has been promoted will create more cynicism, rather than abate it.
	I shall divide my remaining remarks into two questions on the principles and the practicalities.
	The Electoral Commission has been right to argue for a guarded and cautious approach to postal voting. As we have heard, the commission recommended a pilot scheme to be conducted in areas geared up to dealing with potential abuse and fraud and then for an assessment and evaluation to be carried out before deciding whether to extend the scope of postal voting. The commission says that that could be a useful contribution in increasing participation, and certainly evidence from boroughs such as St Helens, where postal votes were used last year, would tend to bear that out. However, from an empirical point of view, what would be really useful is to know whether that is just a passing fancy—an aberration—or a long-term, solid achievement. Clearly such an evaluation would need to take place over several elections for that to become clear.
	What we lose by the extension of that principle is the physical presence that voting at a polling station requires of each citizen. It takes only a few minutes each year to vote at a polling station. Noble Lords who have served in local authorities or in both Houses may not think it an enormous burden to give up a few minutes each year in order to be personally present to vote. It is part of living in a country with the privileges of freedom and liberty that we enjoy.
	GK Chesterton's Edwardian poem "The Secret People" contains a famous admonition to politicians and a reminder of the electoral day of reckoning. He said:
	"we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
	Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget".
	If the voters are not to be seen asserting their rights and liberties through the ballot box, we will lose something special from our democracy, and perhaps the politicians will be more inclined to forget. It was Gladstone's first administration who provided for the secret ballot so that landowners could no longer evict their tenants and employers could no longer discriminate against their workers when voters exercised their franchise against their master's wishes. The safeguards in postal voting are nowhere near as great as those offered by being physically present to vote.
	Another principle at stake is the contamination of the impartial process of elections themselves. When the two major opposition parties object to the arbitrary overturning of the Electoral Commission's recommendations, it breaks the consensus that should always be at the heart of how we organise elections. Charges of manipulation, partisan advantage, gerrymandering and the rest, damage the whole process and can be completely avoided by proceeding only when there is inter-party agreement. It is a very bad principle to ride roughshod over the safeguards. It casts a shadow over the process and risks undermining the legitimacy of the process itself.
	So much for the principles, but what about the practicalities? The Electoral Commission said that it was not able to make a positive recommendation that the north-west region was suitable to undertake a pilot scheme in 2004. If the commission cannot offer such a recommendation, how can the Government be in a position to do so?
	I was looking at a table of comparative experience in organising postal voting. The number of authorities in the north-west is 43, and only 14 per cent—six of them—have any experience of all-postal pilots. By comparison, in the north-east, 65.2 per cent of authorities have that experience. Clearly, the north-east region is in a much better position to carry it out, which is why the Electoral Commission said what it did.
	I have also been in correspondence with the leader of Liverpool City Council—Councillor Mike Storey. I put to him several questions about electoral fraud and multi-occupancy of properties, and his remarks bear out the need to proceed with caution. His letter referred to comments made by the Electoral Commission, which stated:
	"There have been several allegations of electoral fraud in the North West in recent years. These have centred around interference with postal votes, or intimidatory procurement of proxy votes in conventional elections. Some of these investigations could proceed to court in early 2004. This would be likely to produce unfavourable publicity about the security of postal voting".
	Again that will lead to the contamination and the undermining of the process. I also asked about the complexity of running such an election, and he said:
	"An all out council election for the whole city, on new ward boundaries, which do not fit existing constituency boundaries, plus the Euro election at the same time, fills me with great concern about the effective organisation of such an exercise. This is especially so as time is short, and planning started later because the North West was specifically recommended not to be included in the pilot in the Commission's report of 8th December.
	He continued:
	"Given the Freepost for the Euro, as well as an all postal, I estimate that we are looking at 40–50 million additional items for the Post Office to deliver. I suspect it will be chaotic if this pilot goes ahead".
	In cities such as Liverpool and Manchester there is the other issue of multi-occupancy. I well recall from my days as a Member of Parliament that multi-occupancy and vacant properties were frequently where fraudulent votes came from. I remember vividly a group of members of the Militant Tendency who had written on the back of their hands the names of voters whom they had come to the polling station to personate. I saw that with my own eyes and complained about it at the time, and the police were called. How much easier it will be to carry out such abuses using this measure.
	There are principled and practical reasons why we should proceed with great caution before messing around with the electoral process. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to some of the information that I provided in the Grand Committee about the allegation of widespread fraud involving postal voting in towns in the north of England. I shall not repeat it today as it is set out in Hansard and is available for people to read, but towns such as Bradford, Oldham, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Blackburn, Burnley and my own district of Pendle have all been involved.
	Although there have been only a few prosecutions, some police investigations are still going on, and it is widely accepted among politicians of all parties that fraud has taken place, and that it is likely to happen if there is all-postal voting. I chaired a meeting last week, which was attended by many members of the Asian communities from the towns throughout the north-west. They expressed great concern that all-postal voting will lead to fraudulent activity and put a great deal of pressure on the Asian communities. It will be difficult for the political parties to stamp out fraud completely, although we shall do our best.
	Secondly, I agree almost entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who made an excellent speech. Unlike the noble Lord, I am still active in party politics in the region. Since the Grand Committee, I have talked to election staff in the different authorities who have expressed great concern. I am referring not only to those authorities which will have all-out elections in new boundaries, where the whole process itself will be difficult, but to authorities such as Pendle, where we shall have ordinary local elections using the old boundaries. There is great concern that the region as a whole is not ready for such an experiment either administratively or in a practical way.
	Thirdly, I reinforce what my noble friend Lord Rennard said. In the past fortnight, I have talked to people in the north-west from across the parties. They believe that the change is being made for two reasons: first, because it will improve the prospects of the Labour Party in these elections. I think that they are wrong and that the Government are wrong if that is their motivation behind it, but there is no doubt that that is widely believed within the Labour Party in the region. Secondly, it is believed that the measure will help to stop the BNP winning seats. As I said in the Grand Committee, I believe that they are wrong about that too. If it is possible to rig elections, there is no doubt that all-postal voting will make it much easier for unscrupulous people to rig elections. I would not put the BNP at the top of the list of the most scrupulous political parties in the country.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have taken part in more elections either as a candidate or an election agent than I care to remember. I am concerned that the Government and many others are blaming the electorate for apathy and alienation, whereas the fault lies with the political practitioners.
	The fault does not lie with those who vote. If we want people to vote, we must give them something to vote on and enthuse and encourage them to do so. If people do not turn out to vote, it is the fault of political parties and governments. The quarrel that I have with the proposition to have all-postal voting is that the electorate will lose touch with those who govern.
	Going to the polling station, particularly for parliamentary elections, used to be a great occasion. People would get together; they discussed the issues; they voted at the polling station and felt that they had done their duty. They had done their duty collectively and felt good about it. I felt good the first time I voted. I do not know whether first-time voters feel as good as I did then. There is something about going to the polling station to take part in a collective act of duty to elect your government whom you will hold eventually to account.
	Further, any candidate worth his salt will first of all want to identify his supporters. If he is to identify his supporters, he will have to go out and find them. He must talk to them on the doorstep, convince them that he is the man they should support and that he has the policies with which they agree that will make their life better. Door-to-door canvassing is one of the essences of real democracy—to meet the people who will be governed, to see how they want to be governed and to persuade them that you are the chap or the lady to do just that.
	Having identified the relevant people, you get them to the polling station. But there is one problem with postal voting—this has already been identified—because the postal vote is sent out 10 days or a fortnight before the election. Anyone who has done any canvassing knows that, when well done, canvassing continues until midnight of the day of the election. What happens in that interregnum? Even if you canvass people on the postal voting system, you go to the door and they say, "We have voted. We have already done it a fortnight beforehand". Therefore, political parties have no chance to convince those people between the time that they receive their postal vote and the election. Elections are often won or lost in the last few days. I remember that well in 1970 when I was first elected to the House of Commons. It was expected then that the Wilson government would survive but there was a turning point on the Monday before the election and they lost. Big issues are involved here.
	Moreover, having identified your voters, you then get them to the poll. There is great excitement. Many people are working together—the parties are also working together—to get the highest possible turnout. There is contact with the people to persuade them that it is not only their duty but also a pleasure to vote at the polling station. So far as I can see, that will all be completely sacrificed. The measure will make political parties become lazy. Indeed, having four-year elections instead of annual elections has already proved the point that in the interregnum period political parties become lazy and therefore lose contact with the people they are supposed to represent.
	Enlarging the pilot scheme at this stage to cover nearly half the country seems to me completely absurd because the issue is not proven. I believe that it will be bad for our democratic system and bad for government as a whole.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hope that I may add one very brief point to the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I feel very strongly that this measure threatens the secret ballot. Secrecy seems to me to be a most valuable and important thing that must be preserved. We know, alas, from Northern Ireland that there are infinite ways of rigging a postal ballot. The IRA was found to have a printing press in a cellar on which it turned out papers. That can happen. In many communities people will be required to vote in a certain way by certain people. We must preserve the secrecy of the ballot.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not apologise for intervening in this Bill at this late stage. Until the Government see fit to give me a colleague, I am not necessarily able to take part in the earlier stages of every Bill. However, I have been lobbied fairly heavily both by members of the Green Party and by my old friends in the Liberal Party to support this amendment. They all say that, so far as they are concerned, the measure is not only open to abuse but also almost impossible to organise in one or two of the areas which are now thought likely to be included.
	I believe that we should stick to the original recommendations. I take very strong account of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. As someone who was responsible for the organisation of the Liberal effort in two by-elections, both of which returned Liberal Members of Parliament to the House of Commons, I remember distinctly that about five days before polling day you suddenly felt that you had won. Others who have taken part in by-elections will have felt exactly the same. You suddenly know that there is a feeling in the air and your canvassing suddenly surges way ahead. People should be given the opportunity to register their votes right up to polling day. It is not a good thing to expand the postal votes. I sincerely hope that this amendment will be passed.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I wish to speak to the Government's Amendment No. 2 and to respond to the discussion on Amendment No. 1, and, by association, Amendment No. 3. I agreed strongly with one point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made; namely, that no mechanism for voting will by itself solve the problem of disengagement from politics and one's concern about that issue. The noble Lord is right in that respect.
	Without maintaining the tradition of making this a Second Reading debate, it is right that I mark why we are where we are. We are where we are because there has been such a reduction in turnout in local, European and national elections that any neutral political commentator has to be concerned about that issue. The noble Lord was right to say that postal voting by itself cannot constitute a total answer. However, turnout in elections where postal voting has been piloted has increased by some 15 per cent on average. When that 15 per cent is added to a turnout of some 30 per cent, many local authorities have found that the number of the electorate who have voted has increased by 50 per cent. We would be foolish not to consider in a proportionate and thoughtful manner whether the sensible development of postal voting led to a permanent increase in engagement by our electorate, without pretending that it was a total or sufficient measure by itself.
	I turn to the amendments before us today. As is apparent, the Government's amendment names our choice of regions on the face of the Bill and by so doing seeks to negate the need for a main order. I very much appreciate the discussion that I have had with both Opposition Front Benches in that respect. I also appreciate the recognition that although we are not at one regarding the relevant regions, there is a sensible and, I think, healthy consensus that in terms of efficient electoral administration the fact that Parliament itself designates the relevant regions in primary legislation provides certainty and allows the maximum time for preparation on the part of returning officers. I believe that we all consider that that is to the good. I thank noble Lords warmly for that.
	Why four pilot regions? Piloting is about learning lessons. Within reason, the more data that we have, the more accurate the conclusions that we shall be able derive. So far, pilots have been small scale—we have always said that the Bill is about scaling up. The combined electorate of the four regions is more than 14 million people. The evidence that we shall gain from making pilots available on that scale will enormously help the Government and all parties that have a legitimate interest in the issues, including the Electoral Commission, in informing future decisions about whether to go further with postal voting.
	In Committee I explained how we took the Electoral Commission's recommendations which were split broadly into three categories. I believe that in the debate there has been selective quoting from the Electoral Commission report. The Electoral Commission made three points. It had a first category of two regions which were definitely suitable for postal ballots; another four regions which the commission thought were clearly not suitable for a variety of reasons; and a middle category which was marked "potentially suitable", about which the commission was aware there were concerns.
	In December the Government accepted those regions described as suitable and said so. We then worked through those described as "potentially suitable", in the order of ranking as set out by the commission. We considered Scotland, but we decided that Scotland was not a practical possibility because the returning officers in Scotland did not believe that they could deliver a safe election. Therefore, we would have been foolish to have gone ahead in that situation.
	We took operational capability as our key criterion. As a consequence, we had discussions. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Chris Leslie in another place met the regional returning officers from both the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside and discussed with them their perspective on whether they could deliver successful pilots in their situations. To cut short the matter—I shall perhaps refer to it later—both said that if they were chosen they could deliver successful pilots. It is true to say that the degree of enthusiasm differed between the north-west, which was very keen, and Yorkshire and Humberside, which was much less keen. Nevertheless, a key test from Yorkshire and Humberside's point of view was whether a successful pilot could be delivered.
	As part of the process of testing we also discussed the issues of security and safety, which are proper issues of concern in this debate. I shall make it absolutely clear that in doing so, we have been operating completely within the terms of the Electoral Commission. It did not say that the four middle category of potentially suitable regions could not go ahead. It said that there were issues. To put that beyond doubt, the commission said, in the letter that it has distributed to the House for consideration on these amendments, that four regions were unsuitable, but named four regions as potentially suitable for an all-postal pilot. The commission believed that it was open to the Government to have further discussions with these four regions if they were minded to designate additional pilots. We had those discussions, which led us to believe that it was safe and sound for there to be a wider scale of piloting, which we believed to be desirable. To add emphasis to that, Sir Howard Bernstein, chief executive of Manchester City Council and regional returning officer for the north-west, a region that was quite rightly the focus of much of our discussions in Committee, said that,
	"we convened a meeting of all LROs towards the end of last year to discuss the principle of a pilot, and everyone present (42 and 43 local authority areas) committed themselves to work to ensure a successful outcome".
	That was not the Government bludgeoning local authorities into the situation. Similarly those in Yorkshire and Humberside made it clear that while it was not their preference, if they were asked to do it, they believed that they could deliver a successful pilot.
	One further reason for having four rather than two pilot regions is the diversity in those areas. If one pilots the willing, one will always receive a slightly biased result, but life is not made up totally of the willing. Therefore, a significant advantage could be obtained in having pilots that are carried out in areas where people are not necessarily massively enthusiastic about them, or massively experienced in undertaking them. That would be real life. Diversity will help to maximise our experience.
	Why the pilots should take place only in the north was touched on. Clearly London and the south-west were excluded. Additionally Wales, the eastern region and the south-east were all deemed not suitable by the commission and we did not feel that it was appropriate to go against its clear, direct advice nor did we wish to do so.
	On the 50 per cent figure, a more accurate figure is that the pilot regions would see a turnout of about 31 per cent of the electorate. In 2003 the pilot regions saw a 22 per cent turnout of the local electorate; so, as a consequence, we are not talking about such a large scale increase.
	Agreeing to the four pilot regions will give the matter certainty and will be enormously helpful to regional returning officers and to local authorities which, as a consequence, will be able to plan forward. This year marks the last chance for pilots on this scale until 2009. Therefore, I believe that we would be wise to learn from the ability to have a wider-scale pilot by having four rather than two.
	I shall briefly refer to one or two points raised in the debate. I have signalled why this is not the arbitrary overturning of the Electoral Commission's report. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about staff concerns. I would always expect that there would be staff concerns on something of this kind. I have also noted the many important points that he made in Committee on that point.
	On the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, clearly the problem is that the electorate is already partly out of touch with politics, which is one reason for trying to increase turn-out. Door-to-door canvassing will continue but in a different form, as we have seen.
	I shall not weary the House longer, as we shall shortly have a Statement to deal with. We believe that there are good reasons for conducting four pilots. We believe that we shall learn more by having four pilot regions; that four pilots can be carried out successfully; and that the House should allow for four pilots to proceed on this basis so that, as a consequence, we can have early certainty and closure. I hope that the government amendments will be supported and that the opposition amendments will not be.

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that he was speaking only to Amendment No. 2. However, there are 47 amendments in this group, of which 42 are government amendments. Perhaps he could clarify that for the House.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is kind. A large number of consequential amendments follow on from the main government amendment, Amendment No. 2. I apologise. In an attempt to keep short what I said, I abbreviated my notes, which is always a mistake. All the other amendments are consequential amendments on Amendment No. 2, which enables one to remove the need for a general order so that there is only one order subsequent to Royal Assent rather than two.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank very much those who took part in the debate—in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Greaves, and my noble friend Lady Park. Their contributions underlined the concerns that we have had since the Bill began its passage. We made those concerns abundantly clear during the Committee stage but I am afraid that the Minister will probably know that they have not been allayed, even by what he said this afternoon.
	It is true that piloting is all about learning lessons, but sometimes it is easier to learn lessons in small doses than in great swadges. While I accept the Minister's assertion that the electorate in the four pilot regions would account for 31 per cent of the total electorate, that is still a very high proportion when one is working on a regional basis. Therefore, I believe that it would be better to carry out the test on a smaller scale. We know that regions, even if they are European electoral regions, have a habit of transmogrifying themselves into regions in general. Therefore, it would be better to carry out the pilot in a selected, small number of regions.
	I believe that the Minister accused me of quoting selectively from the Electoral Commission. Perhaps I may return the compliment. It is true that, when I put forward my view, I cut out a little of what was said here and there. However, I did not cut out the part at the end, which I do not believe the Minister referred to, where the commission states:
	"We have not ourselves been involved in further discussions";
	namely, the discussions with the two additional regions, which the commission had already said it did not believe were ready or willing to take part in the pilot. Therefore, I do not accept that I misled the House. I believe that I was fairly clear and it is set out in the letter if anyone wants to check it.
	I heard what the Minister said. I do not consider that we have discussed the government amendments in any depth. We shall deal with one or two of them later because other amendments relate to them. However, I may need to put on the record that I expect, or hope, that the order relating to the pilot will be an order of this House and that it will be debated in this House as well as in the other place so that, ultimately, we can see what it says. We carried out an enormous amount of work on this matter in Committee in order to put the practical aspects of the elections into place. We want to ensure that they are all in place before we go forward because, apart from nuances, there has been a little disagreement about them. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause—
	"PILOTING CONDUCT AT EUROPEAN AND LOCAL ELECTIONS
	(1) An election to which this section applies (a pilot election) must be held—
	(a) only by postal voting, and (for that purpose)
	(b) in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order (a pilot order).
	(2) These are the elections to which this section applies—
	(a) the European Parliamentary general election of 2004 in a pilot region;
	(b) a local government election in England and Wales if the poll at such an election is combined with the poll at an election mentioned in paragraph (a).
	(3) These are the pilot regions—
	(a) North East;
	(b) East Midlands;
	(c) Yorkshire and the Humber;
	(d) North West.
	(4) Postal voting is voting where no polling station is used and a person entitled to vote in person or by proxy must deliver the ballot paper by post or by such other means as is specified in a pilot order.
	(5) A pilot order—
	(a) may modify or disapply any provision made by or under a relevant enactment;
	(b) may contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provision or savings (including provision amending, replacing, suspending or revoking provision made by or under any enactment) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate;
	(c) may make different provision for different purposes."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3:
	Leave out lines 16 and 17.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have heard what the Minister said, but I am not satisfied. Therefore, as I indicated earlier, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, shall be agreed to?
	*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 110.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, agreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Amendment No. 2, as amended, agreed to.

EU Enlargement: Free Movement of Workers

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on the Government's approach to the accession of 10 countries into the European Union from 1 May.
	"EU enlargement is extremely welcome and important for our country. It is something to celebrate. All parties in this House are in favour of enlargement. John Major played an important role in launching the process. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was instrumental in calling for early accession of the 10 countries.
	"After 1 May, citizens of the accession states will be free to travel across all EU borders. Our position has always been clear—that the United Kingdom would benefit from all new EU citizens working legally, paying taxes and national insurance. This is an alternative to illegal working, which would fuel the sub-economy and undermine existing conditions of work. But we will take every step to ensure that our benefit system is not open to abuse.
	"We have already tackled benefit tourism by tightening the habitual residence test. Today we are building on that by announcing measures which will ensure that those who come here from the accession countries but do not work will not be able to claim benefits.
	"It is important to remember the positive aspects of migration. The United Kingdom is already benefiting from more than 20,000 accession nationals who have been granted work permits in the past two years. From 1 May this requirement will be replaced by a workers registration scheme.
	"The United Kingdom has one of the most dynamic and successful economies in the world. Since 1997 our economy has experienced growth and prosperity greater than any other large state. Growth has been higher, we have created more sustainable jobs, we have a lower level of unemployment—almost half the level of France and Germany—which is a tribute to my right honourable friend the Chancellor, and to the creativity and flexibility of the British labour market.
	"We currently have more than half a million vacancies and will benefit from the skills, flexibility and willingness to work of these new migrant workers as we have in the past.
	"To say that we welcome legal migration is not new. We set out our policy in our White Paper two years ago, Secure Borders, Safe Haven. We have consistently developed legitimate and legal routes for managed migration, including issuing 175,000 work permits this year, compared to 40,000 in 1997.
	"At the same time we have balanced this by taking tough measures to clamp down on illegal working, abuse of the asylum system and clandestine entry into our economy.
	"We have radically overhauled the asylum system. More than 80 per cent of asylum claims are now processed in under eight weeks. We now have the lowest asylum backlog for a decade—half the level we inherited in 1997. We have halved the number of asylum claims from its peak in October 2002. We are removing record numbers of failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants.
	"This balanced approach enables us to make the positive case for legal, managed migration.
	"The accession of countries into the EU opens up new opportunities for trade and for labour market flexibility. That is why all European Union countries and all political parties in this House welcomed this expansion.
	"That is why I am confirming today our decision to allow workers from the accession states access to our labour market subject to certain sensible conditions.
	"When we first set out our position, only those countries with high levels of unemployment were planning to introduce restrictions on work for accession nationals. Since then other countries have changed their stance.
	"Clearly, it makes sense for us to ensure that our approach does not leave us exposed. We will therefore introduce a new workers' registration scheme to replace work permits for accession nationals. This will place an obligation on all accession nationals to register where and for whom they are working. Their right to work in the UK will depend on their being issued with a registration certificate.
	"It will be incumbent on the employer to check that the employee has registered. This will provide a platform for a national ID scheme under which, in time, all non-UK nationals will be required to register. This will help us accurately to determine how many new workers are in Britain, in which sectors and types of employment. It will also assist with enforcement and inspection and will enable us to react immediately if, against all the odds, there are destabilising effects on the labour market.
	"It is important to emphasise that the Government retain full discretion to remove all or part of the concessions at any time. We will not hesitate to do so if necessary. We will in any case be tightening controls and dealing with those who evade their responsibility by the employment of clandestine workers. I know that all decent employers will want to join with us in co-operating and in rooting out those who exploit.
	"We will be putting before Parliament a set of affirmative regulations which will allow access to the labour market while ensuring our benefits system is not open to abuse.
	"This is a coherent and sensible package of measures, which builds on the principles and policies laid out by the Government over the past three years.
	"We believe that proper, legal, managed migration is good for Britain and fair to genuine workers from the accession countries. Whether they are plumbers or paediatricians they are welcome if they come here openly to work and contribute. At the same time it is clearly not right that people should be able to come here, fail to get a job, and enjoy access to the full range of public services and social security benefits.
	"Therefore, this is the second element of the package we are announcing today. Those wrongly believing that they can move here in order to claim benefits without working should be in no doubt that they cannot. They cannot draw down on benefits without contributing themselves to the rights and entitlements which should go hand in hand with the responsibilities and duties.
	"For two years, and possibly longer, we will require accession nationals to be able to support themselves. If they are unable to do so, they will lose any right of residence and will have to return to their own country.
	"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will bring forward regulations to prevent access to benefits for those not working. My right honourable friend the Paymaster General will bring forward regulations to prevent them from claiming child benefit. We will also restrict access to other benefits such as social housing.
	"This package reinforces the balanced approach to migration that I have spoken about, within a clear set of rules.
	"I reiterate: we welcome people, as we have throughout the centuries, to come to our country to work, to contribute and to be part of our society. We reject those, from wherever they come, who exploit our generosity.
	"This approach takes account of the simple reality that under the treaty of accession, no EU member state has the right to interfere with freedom of movement. The issue therefore, is on what basis people come to our country.
	"By taking these measures we will ensure that those arriving in Britain are able to work for their living, openly and honestly, not drawn into the sub-economy. Those who wish to find a job will be free to do so. Those who come for short periods of time will have the means to do so.
	"In this way we avoid expensive bureaucracy and at the same time protect ourselves from clandestine work and the exploitation of the sub-economy. This is the right approach for Britain in the 21st century: fair on ourselves; fair to our new partners; and tough on those who would abuse the system. I commend this solution to the House."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which I have faced the Minister across the Dispatch Box since a recent television programme on Channel 4, perhaps I may offer her my warm congratulations on being elected by Channel 4 and the Hansard Society as Peer of the Year.
	I turn to the Statement. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place a short while ago. Earlier today the Minister was fastidious in not giving any teasing snippets of information to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford in answer to his Question on related issues which might properly have been answered without encroaching on the Statement. I make no criticism; the Minister was most careful, and properly so, in the Answer she gave. However, her right honourable friend the Prime Minister was not quite so fastidious, in that he pre-empted some of the core information in the Statement by answers that he gave earlier today in a BBC radio phone-in programme. That, of course, just whetted our appetite.
	The enlargement of the European Union is, indeed, not a concept that suddenly emerged over the past six weeks. As the noble Baroness said, it has been on the agenda for years. Britain's strategy for the free movement of labour, which impacts on British jobs and our public services, should have been clear, consistent and planned in advance. The Government have failed to address that imperative until recently.
	Today we learnt that the Government have finally agreed to adopt a policy of registration for work for migrants from the new accession countries. I give a general welcome to that announcement. However, as always we shall have to look very closely at the orders that come before the House, especially those that restrict benefits and social housing to ensure that the Government's policy does not have unintended consequences, especially for those migrants who have families living here with them.
	I have always recognised that there are serious labour shortages in some sectors of the UK economy and that when they are filled by legal migrant workers there is a benefit to the economy from tax and national insurance that they pay, apart from the part they also play, quite rightly, in society in general.
	The Minister used alliterative examples of plumbers and paediatricians. In practice, it is the agriculture and hospitality sectors that probably benefit most from migrant employees. However, I have some questions for the Minister about how the measures she has announced will be implemented.
	The Statement refers consistently to new countries. Are all accession countries thereby covered within these measures, including both Malta and Cyprus, which I had thought would be exempt?
	What about those from the new accession countries who are already working here legally on work permits? Does the time they have spent here count towards the qualifying period before they can claim benefits or do they start from point zero when they register under the new system?
	Referring briefly again to registration, I note that the Statement says that it will be incumbent on the employer to check that the employee has registered. The Minister is right to point out that employers will be very keen to co-operate with the Government to ensure that the system is properly managed. What will be the penalty for an employer who fails to carry out that proper check? What will a proper check be defined as? What consultation has there been over the past week or so with the CBI on these matters? It will ensure that its members are disciplined properly but the CBI has great expertise which could have been fed into the Government in determining which systems can properly carry out such measures.
	I am puzzled by the vagueness of the Government's policy, even at this stage, after the flurry of ministerial discussions last week. We are told in the Statement that for two years and possibly longer the Government will require accession nationals to be able to support themselves and not be eligible for social security benefits, child benefit and social housing. Why have the Government not yet determined the length of that period? What will influence their decision when they do let us know how long it will be?
	The Prime Minister said this morning on the radio—and I quote the BBC quoting him:
	"If they can't support themselves, they will be put out of the country".
	What is the legal basis for that compulsory expulsion? Who will pay for their expulsion—central or local government or the previous employer? Since the migrant is presumably destitute, one wonders how he or she might be expected to pay for it.
	Finally, I notice that the Government bring ID cards into the equation. They say that the information given to employers will provide a platform for a national ID cards scheme. For my last two questions I ask the final and very obvious ones: how; and, when?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I suppose I should declare an interest as someone who was employed as a part-time university teacher in the Czech Republic and Hungary between 1993 and 1996. I am happy to say that they did not impose an ID card on me or any of the other things that are proposed for the other way around.
	We on these Benches give a half welcome to this Statement. It is a useful defence of legal migration, but it slides down towards accepting tabloid press campaigns against the Roma and others. We would like to have seen some reference in a Statement of this kind to the contribution which Poles, Czechs and Slovaks have made to Britain over the past three generations. Those of us who have spent a lot of our time in the north of England know very well that those who were forced to come here after the War—being caught on the wrong side—had often fought for us in the Second World War and their grandchildren continue to make a major contribution to the British economy.
	It worries us that the press campaign against the Roma has produced such a response from the Government; and, as I suggested during Question Time earlier this afternoon, it continues to puzzle us that the Government are so robust in standing up to the BBC but so remarkably unrobust in their response to the Daily Mail, the Sun and others. I have noted the number of occasions in the past few weeks that the Daily Mail has picked out asylum seekers and others as being sources of social turmoil in Britain. That seems to be the kind of press campaign to which any Labour Government should be standing up, and I regret that the Prime Minister has failed to do so.
	Do the Government have evidence on the scale of benefit abuse and benefit tourism, or is this an imagined problem—a small problem that has been blown up by the press into a large issue when the issue really is not there? Certainly, we may regret that many other European Union states have retreated from the principles of freedom of labour. We welcome the Government's reiteration that they are in favour of freedom of movement within the EU and the enlarged EU and that as these states join the EU, which we welcome, they should be entitled to freedom of movement as rapidly as possible.
	I would love to ask the Government how they assess the net movement. We know very well of the large number of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and others who come into Britain every year, work for short periods and go home again. That is not gross movement, it is net movement. Since we do not have very clear exit controls of people moving across the Channel, I am not clear how the Government will collect the figures.
	However, what is new in the Statement is the workers registration scheme—a national identity card scheme for all non-UK nationals. Have the Government consulted about that? Will it apply to company directors, people working in banks or to university teachers? There are French, German and Greek nationals in my department at the London School of Economics where I teach. Will they need to have ID cards? Is this seen as the beginning of an extension of an ID card system to all people in employment in Britain? That seems to be the most significant part of the Statement; and it is that which we need to know most about.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her kind words. I should like to remind the House that two other noble Baronesses were nominated—the noble Baroness being one and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the other. I certainly celebrated that this House for the first time nominated three women on merit and not gender. So I very much congratulate the noble Baroness on being among that band.
	Perhaps I may now turn to the questions asked by the noble Baroness. I thank her for the warmth of her welcome in relation to the Statement. The issue of genuine workers being able to take advantage of work here is very important. In the few weeks before we broke for the break, it was clear just how bad some of the consequences can be where illegal workers are exploited in a quite improper way.
	I can reassure the noble Baroness that Malta and Cyprus are not included in the list. They have been exempt. None of the 15 EU members states is imposing restrictions on free movement of workers from Malta and Cyprus. That is because of their wealth—they are the two richest members of the 10 accession states, with approximately 70 to 75 per cent of the EU GDP average—their small size, and their historical links with some existing EU member states. Malta and Cyprus are both Commonwealth members, as the noble Baroness knows.
	The United Kingdom, by opening up its labour market to registered workers from the A8—unlike other EU member states—is ensuring that those who come here to work will do so legally rather than illegally, paying taxes and national insurance rather than working in the black economy. That is a matter about which I know the noble Baroness has spoken in the past and it is something that we are absolutely determined to eradicate. We also expect reciprocal rights for British workers to work in the new member states.
	The noble Baroness mentioned the shortages and the availability of workers in the agricultural and hospitality sectors. That is why our approach is to allow workers from the EU accession countries to work in any sector they choose. We have consulted very widely. The noble Baroness may know that both the CBI and the TUC are very much in favour and support the decision to open the UK labour market. The British Chamber of Commerce did so also. They made it clear to us that they would not support an arrangement which would either put on a quota or would mean that people would have to apply before they arrived here. We listened very carefully to that advice. We were very grateful that both the CBI and the TUC gave their whole-hearted support.
	The noble Baroness asked about the two years or longer mentioned in the Statement. She will know that the arrangements as a result of the accession treaty mean that in the first two years we will be able to make regulations under the national law. Those could be extended for another three years to make it five years and/or could be extended further—if there were specific specialised causes of concern—into the seven-year period. It is those two years to which we refer in that part of the system.
	Those people who come here legitimately and work well will be in a position to take the benefits that accrue to them. That will be made clear. I absolutely understand that the noble Baroness will want to look very carefully at the regulations to make sure that they accord with what is right and proper.
	On the issue of identity cards, the noble Baroness and the House will recall that the Government have made clear our approach in relation to the introduction of ID cards. This will be incremental and is part of the work that we have already indicated that we wish to see.
	Perhaps I may turn now to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I take great pleasure in agreeing with him about the real contribution that has been made by migrant workers in the past but particularly the Poles, the Czechs and those who have come over the years from the eastern European bloc. The noble Lord will remember that we were at the forefront in welcoming enlargement as being of a positive benefit.
	I also take pleasure in confirming many of the points that were alluded to at Question Time earlier this afternoon. Britain has benefited hugely from migration. UK employment is at a record high. It is up by 1.7 million since the spring of 1997; the UK ILO unemployment is down by 0.6 million since the spring of 1997; our long-term unemployment is down by more than three-quarters since April 1997; and we have the lowest ILO unemployment rate among the G7 countries. It is one of the lowest ILO unemployment rates in the EU, being almost half that of France and Germany. Approximately 15 per cent of the UK trend economic growth depends on migration. Migrants make up 8 per cent of the population but generate 10 per cent of our total wealth. Migrants are substantial net contributors to the Exchequer. Studies show that, in 1999–2000, they paid £2.5 billion more in taxes than they consumed in benefits and services. We are in no doubt that they are a positive benefit. The noble Lords opposite should be in no doubt that the children of migrants are of benefit because their leader is one such person. If we look around this House—I do not include myself as I was born British—we know that we have all benefited from the richness that comes from migration to this country.
	I would like to reassure the noble Lord that the difficulty that we have experienced concerning this matter is not a change. We have had to be absolutely practical in the way in which we deal with it. For the first time our system could potentially be abused: benefits could become a draw. We have no legitimate way of identifying benefit abuse in the past, and we are simply making sure that that will not occur in the future. We are using the registration system as a means of identifying how many people come here, where they go to and what the migration flows are. There is no indication that that will cause a difficulty.
	Earlier this afternoon, the noble Lord said that similar stories and concerns about accession have been bandied about. He was right. We do not believe that this will be a problem; we have taken the course that was necessary in order to make sure that we do not experience the adverse consequences that others have feared. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured. We take delight in promoting the benefits that we have seen. The Government are unable to dictate what the tabloid press prints in response to what they say. If only it were otherwise. That is the position that we are in.
	This is a rational and appropriate response to the problems that we now face, and I hope the noble Lord will feel that he is able to be wholly congratulatory now instead of only partially so.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what discussions have taken place with the Refugee Council and like organisations? What proposals do the Government have? If a persuasive case is advanced by any of them, will the Government consider what they have to say positively? Will they make appropriate changes to the proposals that she has outlined today, if necessary?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course we honour what the Refugee Council has said in the past. We take its recommendations and statements very seriously. On this occasion we are concentrating not on refugees but on legal migrants who are members of the eight accession countries. They have the right to come to this country and visit without restriction. I remind the House that migrant workers are able to come to all EU countries if they are self-employed. There is no restriction on any EU national travelling to any EU country and working there on a self-employed basis. That is good for industry and good for the economy. It will be welcomed by all EU countries.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, are the proposed measures based on an evidence-based forecast, as opposed to reaction to press coverage?
	Last year all parties were happy that this country would not take advantage of transitional measures. Is it not likely that the public will be confused by this schizophrenic reaction? On one hand, the Government speak about the welcome statistics of the benefits of migration, and employ lofty rhetoric to explain how enlargement would be welcomed; and yet the reality is that we are imposing restrictions and treating nationals of the new member states as second-class people. That was not what we promised them 15 years ago when we talked about accession to the EU.
	The Government have mentioned the problem of hysteria. Are they aware that on the "Today" programme this morning there was an item on the rate of HIV infection in the new accession countries being the highest in the world? It turned out to be about Russia and the Ukraine, which are not accession countries.
	The Minister talked openly about the worker registration scheme being part of the move towards a national ID scheme. Will that apply to all British nationals as well as foreigners? Does she think that the British public would welcome the worker registration scheme if they knew that it was a move towards a national ID scheme?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall deal with the last point first. Noble Lords will remember that, when we set out our incremental proposals for ID registration, we made it clear that there would be an opportunity to consider whether they should be implemented more broadly. We discussed the biometric information that will go into a number of materials—passports, driving licences and so on. We have been absolutely open on where those issues are going. The report is not confused. We are not retracting or retrenching from what we said at the beginning.
	My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was at the forefront of those who proposed enlargement. That was backed up by the statements made very openly and cogently by my right honourable friend Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, on 10 December 2002. Nothing has changed. We are not making the nationals from the new accession countries second-class citizens. We are opening our markets in a bold and proper way so that we can reap the benefits that we said would come from accession.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say that those who come here and are unable to support themselves will lose their right to remain? If that is the case, what powers will the Government have to remove them in those circumstances? What reason is there to think that, in practice, they would be removed, given the Government's signal failure to remove immigrants at the present time?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord. Our level of removal has never been higher. We are getting better and better at removals.
	Those who come to this country and work will be able to stay. Those who do not work will not be able to claim benefits. They may either be self-employed or support themselves. If they try to claim benefits improperly, that will be dealt with. It will be possible to remove those who behave improperly and seek to do that. However, those who come here and work and behave in a way that is conducive to increasing wealth for both themselves and ourselves will be able to continue to work here openly.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Baroness answered my specific question. What powers will be used by the Government to remove those who come here and are unable to support themselves?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, they will not be entitled to any benefit. If they infringe the new rules that we are about to bring in, we will be able to remove them. Your Lordships will know that in the case of EEA nationals who are no longer trying to get work, or no longer able to get work, we have appropriate rules that will make it possible for us to remove them. There will be similar rules in relation to this category.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about legal, managed migration. However, will she confirm that registered migrant workers will be entitled to minimum wages without illegal deductions? That will be particularly important in catering, horticulture, cockle picking and other miscellaneous employment.
	The noble Baroness went on to say that such registered workers would have to support themselves for two years. Is that not far too long? Would not six months be more appropriate? Hard cases are almost certain to emerge, involving, for example, people who suffer industrial accidents or people whose employers suddenly go bankrupt and lay them off. Will there be some kind of compassionate arrangement for dealing with such situations, given what the noble Baroness said about the tax surplus arising from migrant workers?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord's concerns about the minimum wage are already covered. In order for a worker to show that he is entitled to be registered, he must have evidence of a job, such as a letter from an employer or a contract of employment including details of the work. There must be evidence that he is being paid the minimum wage or more, along with a photograph, passport or ID card.
	The two-year period to which I referred is the period from accession. The individual worker will have to demonstrate that he is in continuous employment for one year. If he loses his job during that year, he will not be entitled to benefit. However, he can apply for new registration when he gets another job. The important thing is that such people must work continuously for a year, before they would be entitled to claim any benefit. Work-related benefits may be available to them, but not if they are not working. Everything flows from work. Someone who is in work will get certain benefits; someone who is not in work is not entitled to claim any benefit at all.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Home Secretary. In particular, I am grateful for the economic and social context in which she valued enlargement.
	There are two specific details of the Statement that I want to raise. I notice that there is no reference in the Statement to access to National Health Service treatment. Will my noble friend give me an indication of what is intended?
	I hope that my noble friend can also reassure me on my doubts about access to social housing. On the basis of what she said, is it not a fact that an EU citizen in these circumstances could be in a worse relative position with regard to access to social housing than a non-EU migrant—legal or illegal—who presents himself or herself to the local authority for housing? Such a disparity between the EU migrant and the non-EU migrant, particularly if the non-EU migrant were illegal, would be hard to justify in equity or logic.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that workers from the accession countries will, if they are in work and paying tax and national insurance, be entitled to derive benefits from the National Health Service. We have tried to differentiate between those who are working and those who are not here for work. Either the individual can support himself without access to benefit or he is here working properly and openly and is able to get access to some assistance. That is the distinction that we have made, and we believe that it is a proper one.

Earl Russell: My Lords, we have read a good deal recently about benefit tourism. Can the Minister quote to us any year in the past 10 for which the Eurostat figures put our benefit levels above the third quartile? Until she can, will she agree that the phrase "benefit tourism" is grossly mistaken?
	Am I right in believing that the central basis of EU law on migrant workers is that the right to benefits depends on someone actively seeking work, a principle well known to British law? The Minister now proposes to base it on success in obtaining work, which is not under the applicant's control. What thought has she given to the consequences for the applicant of that loss of entitlement to benefits? Will her department, in particular, examine the report published on 5 February by the Department for Work and Pensions on loss of benefit for breach of a community service order? It shows that, in return for a measly 1.8 per cent increase in compliance, there has been an increase in severe hardship and an increase in crime. Is not the attempt to ask people to live without benefit for two years likely to benefit no one but the gang masters of Morecambe Bay?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, several things have been conflated, if I may respectfully say so. First, noble Lords will know that the DWP report on loss of benefit for breach of a community service order relates to young people who have not addressed the orders appropriately. It cannot properly be relied on in this context. The noble Earl asked about years when we were above the third quarter. I do not know the answer to that, and I will have to write to the noble Earl. To be frank, I must say that I am not sure that I understood what the noble Earl was saying.
	We are making a distinction between the position of EEA members and the accession countries as regards rights under the actively seeking work principle. The derogation is in the accession treaty, and we are seeking to allow those who come here to work in a way that is open and fair.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I have a practical question for the Minister. What happens, if someone who comes from one of the accession countries—where, after all, the average wage is less than half our minimum wage, making the attraction of coming here clear—has an accident at work or loses his job after, say, a couple of months? He may have brought his family and may have three or four children. Is the Minister really saying that that family will be left destitute and that there will be some procedure by which they will be returned to their country? What happens while that procedure is going on? What view will the courts take of that? Will not the Government find that the courts have ruled that their policy is unacceptable?
	I worry about the practicalities. I understand why the Minister is giving her response, but she should give some comfort to those of us who find it difficult to see how the system will work in practice.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Lord appreciates, the way in which the scheme is to work will enable those from the A8 countries, which are accession countries, to come here and take advantage of the opportunities to work. The whole purpose is that they are able to do that; we are making no restrictions on them bringing their families. They will be able to take advantage of a number of the facilities available here in the UK which may not be available as easily in their host countries. But the hard fact is that if they are not, within that first 12 months, able to maintain themselves and their family, they will not be entitled to claim state benefit. They may be able to obtain assistance from the local authority in relation to going home again or some short-term respite, but they will not be entitled to state benefit as of right. I am sorry if that does not give the noble Lord the comfort he seeks, but that will be the position.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister remember that on 12 February she gave the Government's estimate that there are between 5 million and 7 million Roma people in the accession countries? Does she agree that the majority of these live in very miserable and often deprived conditions and that many of them are persecuted? Does she recognise that if only 5 per cent of those were to come here and have difficulty fitting in and getting jobs, at an average cost of benefit and services of some £10,000 a head—the sort of figure generally mentioned nationally—it would cost £2.5 billion to £3 billion a year, which is the entire GDP growth forecast for next year?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that the main concentration of the debate seems, unfortunately, to have hinged on the Roma. We do not think that that is an appropriate way to look at these issues. We are making it absolutely clear to all those who wish to come to this country that if they come here and do not get work they will not be entitled to state benefits. We are saying very clearly that if it is their purpose to come to this country and not work, it will not work.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Minister has already confirmed that more than 175,000 work permits were issued for the purpose of managed migration and, of those, about 20,000 were issued to EU nationals. Will she confirm that the people who come here from EU accession countries would have no consequential effect on the work permits issued to people from Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand in particular, and other parts of the world? Will she also confirm that at the end of the residential qualification period, both EU nationals and others would be entitled to British nationality?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that they would be entitled to apply for British nationality. Whether they would be entitled to be granted it is, of course, another issue.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that we see this as an opportunity for progressive change. Many people who come to this country are, regrettably, abused and taken advantage of because they cannot work legitimately. We are providing a clear way in which any of these individuals can come to this country and apply for work at the minimum wage or above, so that they will not be exploited and employers who seek to take advantage by oppressing or subjugating them will not have the opportunity to do so.
	This is the best way of giving individuals a legitimate route to be here, to work hard and to contribute. If that succeeds, we will all be able to reap the benefit.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, will the Minister now answer—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I draw noble Lords' attention to the clock.

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 2 [Pilot order]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
	"(1) This section has effect in relation to a pilot order.
	(2) A pilot order may make provision for conduct which differs from that provided for by or under a relevant enactment."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to give a word of explanation. This amendment, along with a number of others that we will come to during the course of our discussions this afternoon, is consequential on the amendment to Clause 1 that was made by the Government in their Amendment No. 2, as amended by the Opposition's Amendment No. 3. They simply make it clear that there will not be a need for a general order for the reasons that we gave in the earlier discussion. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should tell your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 6 because of pre-emption.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rennard: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) The pilot order must provide that—
	(a) all postal ballot papers must be accompanied by a declaration of identity, signed by the elector and by a witness, and containing in legible form the name and address of the witness;
	(b) each elector who has returned a postal ballot paper is sent an acknowledgment by the returning officer."

Lord Rennard: My Lords, our earlier debate featured a number of serious concerns about voting by post. This amendment is about minimising those concerns where all postal vote pilots will still take place. I would be rather less concerned if they took place in two regions rather than four, but there are still important concerns about the possibilities of personation.
	Postal vote fraud is a serious risk. Requiring a witness signature to accompany the vote could make a considerable difference in reducing problems, particularly in areas of multiple occupation homes and in inner cities.
	Some people say that fraud in postal voting is very rare, but I do not believe we should open up the system to abuse. I can see how, with all-postal voting pilots in a number of areas, there could be extensive abuse.
	On the whole, the Electoral Commission is of the view that so far there is not widespread abuse. It points to the fact that, generally, abuse in our political system is pretty rare. However, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, there are abuses and examples of fraudulence in a number of places. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, referred to our experience in Liverpool in the 1980s. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, was mindful of some of the tactics employed by the Militant Tendency in the 1980s regarding personation at the polling stations.
	It is rather difficult in some places to go to the polling station and impersonate someone else; I suggest that it is very much easier if you simply collect in the postal votes. You could collect 10 postal votes put through one letterbox in a house and sign to the effect that you were those 10 people. If you had to require a witness signature to say that you were such and such a person, that would be a significant deterrent to abuse. People at the Electoral Commission, with whom I have discussed this in some detail, say that checks are not often made on these anyway. My point is that a check can be made, and it is a deterrent to someone claiming another's vote.
	I know also that there may be some problems for deaf-blind people or other disabled people, but I suggest that postal voting with a witness signature is still easier for many than going to a polling station. If you apply to vote by post in the London elections in June and receive a postal vote, you will have to obtain a witness signature to say that you are the person voting in that way. I see no reason for suggesting that if an all-postal pilot takes place, in the east Midlands or the northern region, for example, that requirement should be abandoned.
	I would say by way of comfort to people who are concerned that the witness signature requirement may reduce turnout slightly or make it slightly harder for some disabled people to vote that the solution will come in a few years, I hope, when there is individual registration of voters on the electoral register. At present, one person tends to fill in the form for everyone who lives in the household. That means that only one signature is kept by the returning officer, and it is impossible for other people on the electoral register in that household who return postal votes to have their self-certification signature checked because there is no other record of their signature.
	Within a few years we will have a new system, I hope, whereby every individual will go on the electoral register, with a copy of their own signature. When we reach that point, there will be no need for a witness signature, but until then, I suggest this amendment is very necessary. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. There was a good deal of discussion in Grand Committee about the best way to ensure the validation of postal votes and how to ensure that there is no personation. We discussed several methods. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I believe that the best possible way is by witnessing postal ballots. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, this is one issue that we discussed in great detail in Grand Committee. While we were discussing these matters, we were told by the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and, on the second day, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting—that we would be sent a draft policy paper or something of that kind. I understand that a 70-page document has been sent out, but I am afraid that I have not received it. I am not sure whether it is the draft pilot order—no, it is the policy paper. Hansard could provide many instances of when I was personally told that I would receive the information, but I have not. I should be grateful if I could have the information as quickly as possible, not least to dissuade me from tabling lots of amendments for Third Reading.
	I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend. There is a real fear that widespread postal voting means the end of the secret ballot. That is the fundamental point of principle behind the concern about and opposition to postal voting. The Electoral Commission and the Government have examined ways of addressing the problem. I remain to be convinced that they have found a satisfactory solution. However, some of the measures in the policy paper—which I look forward to reading—will, we are told, seek to address this vital fundamental problem. We could have all the postal voting in the world, but if the fundamental principle of the secret ballot goes out of the window, that is the end of democracy as we know it. This is a crucial issue. As my noble friend said, the Electoral Commission suggests that individual registration is, in the long run, the best way to tackle the problem, but that cannot be included in the pilots this year.
	I believe that it is wrong to do away with one of the safeguards that currently exist. There is no point in introducing new safeguards if, at the same time, we do away with the only one that ensures that the person filling in the ballot paper and sending it back is the person to whom it has been sent. That is the fundamental problem. Requiring a witness provides a safeguard. I have personal experience of looking into irregularities in a particular local election two years ago. It is possible for members of the public or representatives of the candidates to inspect the declaration of identity—as it is called at the moment—after the event. Inspecting declarations does not prove anything in a hard and fast way, but it gives one a very good idea of what has happened when people have gone out to rig an election. We found that several individuals had witnessed more than 100 postal votes each. That sets one on the trail of working out how that particular election may have been rigged—as there is no doubt that it was in Pendle two years ago. It is a crucial safeguard and a pointer to what happens.
	Secondly, because witnesses use their own signatures, it is relatively easy to examine the signatures of the electors concerned and assess whether they have been forged by the person who witnessed the signature. Indeed, I have no doubt that that happened in Pendle two years ago. Therefore, this is almost the only safeguard that people have if they are examining allegations that a particular election has been rigged. Under the pilots, when the Government are looking for other safeguards to introduce to protect the secrecy of the postal vote, it would be wrong to remove the one safeguard that we have at the moment.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of the Electoral Reform Society. It will not surprise the House to find that I am in entire agreement with my noble friend Lord Rennard, who is a member of the council of that society. However, I feel that I owe it to the House to report some misgivings from well informed people, which I do not share, but on which the Minister should have a chance to comment. They come from among others the campaign manager of Scope, and from my son, who is parliamentary officer of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. They are concerned about the witness requirement. They fear that it may infringe the secrecy of the ballot, discourage disabled turnout and create alarm and despondency. They fear that the requirement for a legible signature may have an adverse effect on disabled people. It is true that blind people have difficulty in producing a legible signature on occasion, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that the signature is that of the witness and not the voter.
	This issue is one of the possibility of fraud. There is a real fear of fraud in the case of proxy voting. I know of several cases in which there has been a vehement suspicion of fraud in proxy votes, but it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt—a point of some importance. Does the danger of fraud justify the need for a witness, and, if so, why? That answer would be worth having on the record before the Bill leaves this House.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in rising to respond to these issues, I again put on record that, although we do not necessarily think that concerns about fraud are of the level signalled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in Grand Committee, there is regrettably some fraud in our electoral practices. Neither of those statements implies that the Government are quiescent or passive about the importance of investigating and appraising whether, through further use of postal ballots, fraud increases or can be removed or reduced to the minimum possible level. I want to make that absolutely clear before I respond specifically to these issues.
	Although we may not agree about the mechanisms or the quantum we certainly do agree about the importance of ensuring that, if postal balloting is taken further, we find effective ways of resisting, rebutting, and deterring fraudulent practices. For good reasons that I am sure will be shared throughout the House, that will be an essential component of such ballots having credibility in the future and therefore having the confidence of all electors and political parties.
	We discussed this specific issue in Grand Committee and I made clear our intention to mandate within the pilot order that a ballot paper must be validated with a security statement signed by the elector. We do not intend, as this amendment suggests we should, additionally to require electors to obtain the signature of a witness. I will try to explain why. We have taken our lead on this issue from the Electoral Commission. In its report, The Shape of Elections to Come, the commission identifies a number of reasons for utilising the security statement in place of the declaration of identity.
	Those reasons are reiterated in a briefing the commission has produced specifically on the amendments under discussion today. They were; first, that the requirement to complete a declaration discourages some electors from voting as it could be difficult to find a witness. Secondly, the necessity of a witness could increase the risk of a breach of secrecy as the witness may see the elector's vote. Thirdly, the Electoral Commission said that involving another person in the voting process would create the potential for a breach of security, mitigating that as a safeguard against fraud. Fourthly, it said that there was a significant issue of a risk of disenfranchisement being increased. The commission was strongly concerned that paragraph (a) of the amendment would introduce a feature that its previous evaluation of pilot schemes had indicated served little purpose in terms of fraud prevention and created real risks.
	The commission recommended to the Government in September 2003 that in future all postal ballots should not require a witnessed declaration, for the reasons that I have given. Instanced in that was evidence from opinion polling and other sources, which showed that some potential voters in all-postal pilot schemes had been deterred from voting because of the difficulty or inconvenience of finding a suitable witness. The commission also said that a witness statement offered no guarantee of security, as there was no register of signatures. Therefore, it was perfectly possible for witness signatures also to be forged.
	I shall give a further example from the piloting experience that the commission reported on in 2003. It noted that in Trafford, only 414 ballot papers were rejected out of a total return of about 84,000. In the previous year, with a declaration of identity, 2,164 ballot papers had to be rejected. The commission pointed out that that equated to 2.5 per cent of the total turnout. In other words, there is a much higher rate of invalid ballot papers as a consequence of the requirement. If we were to extrapolate those figures across the four pilot regions and assume, optimistically perhaps, that there was a 50 per cent turnout at those elections, the consequence would be that 175,000 people could be disenfranchised because invalid papers had been submitted.
	In essence, we are taking the Electoral Commission's view and advice on the matter. That does not mean that we do not believe there to be an issue about fraud, but on the advice of the commission and in our own opinion, we do not believe that the proposal suggested by the amendment is the way to deal with it.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, there is considerable concern that such a measure might discriminate against those with disabilities. Officials in the department met representatives from Scope and RNIB last week, and a strong view was expressed that a witness requirement only added another obstacle barring many disabled people from voting in secret and at their convenience. Scope feels so strongly about the issue that it has written to two noble Lords expressing its views, saying:
	"We are clear that requiring voters to have their ballot witnessed by another person not only increases the likelihood of people spoiling their ballot or returning them uncompleted but also puts many disabled and older voters, who are more likely to be more isolated or live alone, at a substantial disadvantage".
	As I have said, the forgery of one signature does not preclude the forgery of a second signature.
	Furthermore, it has been suggested that voters must be sent acknowledgement. I understand why that is suggested, but both our and the Electoral Commission's view is that that should not be done because it would substantially increase cost and bureaucracy. More importantly, it is not an effective anti-fraud measure. It is also doubtful whether it would really work. We have taken steps to reduce the risk in situations such as houses in multiple occupation. An individual who is willing to accept the potential consequence of fraudulently taking an elector's vote is likely to put in place contingencies to accept any acknowledgement. Electors can ask whether a vote has been received, and returning officers will be able to give them that information.
	Without more ado or delaying the House further, I reiterate that we agree on the importance of using the pilots as ways in which to identify whether fraud is taking place and effective ways in which to resist, rebut and deter it. However, we do not believe that the amendment is a good way in which to do that. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw it.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand the sincerity of his argument about various measures to overcome fraud with postal voting. However, I still believe that the witness signature on the declaration of identity is a necessary weapon in the armoury against fraud at this stage, until such time as there is individual voter registration.
	I understand that there may be concerns about the secrecy of the ballot. However, as the ballot paper is inserted into one envelope and can be sealed and seen by nobody else and the declaration of identity then accompanies it, there should be no problem with secrecy. I accept that there may be some problems for some people in acquiring a witness to sign that they are who they say they are. However, we are now at a point at which the all-postal pilot votes may not require that, while in any other region in England, Scotland and Wales, if one votes by post on 10 June, one will require a declaration of identity. I do not see why there should be that difference. On that basis—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should like to make one response, which I omitted earlier, to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the policy paper. He has my apologies if he has not received a copy. We believe that one was sent, but I shall try to ensure that one gets to him this afternoon.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 157; Not-Contents, 110.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I must inform the House that in the first Division this afternoon, the number voting "Not-Content" was 111 and not 110, as previously announced.
	I call Amendment No. 7.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, speaks to his amendment, I draw to the attention of those of your Lordships who did not notice the fact that the Division Bells failed to function in the last Division. The Division was therefore extended to 10 minutes from the conventional eight minutes. If the Division Bells cannot be repaired, we may need to give further thought to how we proceed in future Divisions. Obviously, in this particular case we were caught short, as it were, by the failure of the equipment. Let us hope that it can be repaired.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) The pilot order must make provision for including in the count of votes any postal ballot paper received by the returning officer through the post on the day following the day appointed for the poll (or, where more than one day has been appointed, the last of such days)."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as one of the tellers for the "Not-Contents" in the first Division this afternoon, I feel a certain sense of guilt about the correction that has just been made.
	I tabled this amendment because I think it is essential to allow postal voters to vote on polling day, which would be the effect of this amendment. It is wrong in principle to say that postal voters in pilot regions must vote a day earlier than voters in the regions that have conventional polling. It is true, of course, that most recipients of postal ballots are likely to vote quite shortly after receipt of a ballot. That is not necessarily a good thing, but that is what seems to happen in practice. Surely, however, they should have the right to delay their vote until polling day. As has been said, people change their minds as a result of events which may happen at a very late stage during the poll. So it seems right that it should be possible to vote by post on the polling day itself.
	When I originally tabled the amendment I had assumed that postal votes cast on a Thursday would be delivered to the returning officer on Friday morning and that postal votes cast on Friday would be delivered until Saturday, with the result that votes received on the Friday would be votes cast on the Thursday—assuming that to have been the polling day—and that they should therefore be counted. I recognise that it is possible under the Government's proposal for people to go to a supported delivery point, but that is likely to be inconvenient in a great majority of the cases and impracticable in a substantial number of them. If there are one, two or, at most, three supported delivery points in each constituency, a journey of many miles may be required to reach them in rural areas. Even in urban areas, supported delivery points may be located in places where parking is difficult or impossible. They may be beyond easy walking distance and involve the voter having to use and pay for public transport.
	It now appears from the policy paper published by the Government—I am very grateful for having been sent a copy of it—that I may have been wrong to assume that ballots posted on polling day will not be collected and delivered on that day. Section 6 of the paper states:
	"Royal Mail will be offering a specialised service for these elections which will provide for all electoral mail collected on the day of poll, up to the last collection from post boxes within the local authority area, to be sorted out and made available to electoral administrators at a time that ensures the ballots are available for the close of poll . . . It will ensure that ballots put into post boxes within the local authority area up until the time of last collection (usually between 4.00 pm and 6.00 pm) on the day of the poll are collected and made available for the count.
	The policy paper goes on to say:
	"Electoral administrators should make it clear in elections materials that ballots should be posted no later than midday on the day before the date of the poll or otherwise to return completed ballots at a SDP. The 'day of poll sweep' will act as a contingency to catch ballots where electors do not heed this advice".
	So far, so good; that means that postal voters will be able to vote by post on Thursday. At the same time, however, it appears that voters will be told not that they can vote on the Thursday, but that they must vote by Wednesday, even though they will in fact have been able to vote by post on the Thursday. If that is the position, then that seems very unsatisfactory. Surely the official election literature must accurately tell the voters the true position. It is entirely legitimate for them to be encouraged to post not later than the day before polling day. However, surely they must be told that ballots posted before the last collection on polling day will in fact be delivered and counted. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case? I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as I think the Liberal Democrats appreciate, although we exactly understand the situation, we are not totally in support of the amendment, mainly because we think that without a poll closing time it will be very difficult to decide the time by which a ballot has to be received in order for it to be counted. What will the election literature specify as the time by which a ballot must be posted to ensure that it is counted? To some extent it will depend on the Royal Mail. However, we need to know a little more clearly what the Royal Mail is intending to do. We shall come to that point in a later amendment.
	When we spoke to the Minister in a meeting a week or so ago, there was some confusion between the time at which the Royal Mail would make the final collection of ballot papers—between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on the day of the poll—and the time by which it would be advisable to post the completed ballot as stated in the election literature. The point may have been covered in the policy paper, but the policy paper will have to be turned into something else, which I presume will be the pilot order. The point will have to be covered in that.
	I was pleased to see included in the policy paper a commitment that the number of votes received after the close of poll will be counted to inform an evaluation by the Electoral Commission on the reliability of the system.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, we explored this issue in Committee and in a meeting between Committee and Report stages. I should set down a number of foundation principles. It is absolutely critical that there should clearly be a time when polling ceases. That time is, and it will be, 10 o'clock on the day itself. Both we and the Electoral Commission think that it would be quite wrong to have any confusion about that at all.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated, we are minded to include in the advice that electoral officers should provide the advice that, if people in the polling areas are intending to post their vote rather than go to an SDP, they should post it by 12 o'clock on the day before. I think that that is sound and good advice because doing that will minimise the risk that one's vote does not arrive in time. In practice, the elector will have had not only the previous day but the previous two weeks to decide whether to vote by post and to post their ballot. The evidence from many places is that, for fairly obvious reasons, people tend to do it fairly early; if they are going to vote they tend to get on with it and do so. So the position is that most people will vote well before the final day. The advice will be that, if they are going to post their ballot, they should do so no later than 12 o'clock on the day before. If they wish to vote on the day itself, they can always go to a supported delivery point to vote in person.
	That brings us to the final question about what the Royal Mail will seek to do. The Royal Mail has said that it will seek to scour the post boxes and sorting offices within the pilot regions between four o'clock and six o'clock on the day of posting. It seems perfectly sensible for the Royal Mail to do that—to try to maximise the likelihood that votes will count in cases where there has been a failure to collect a vote from a box if someone has voted the day before, or where someone has inadvertently and unadvisedly voted on the day itself. However, that will not change the clear advice that one should vote on the day before or, preferably, several weeks before. That is an opportunity that the postal voting system seeks to allow.
	That is the Government's position and I hope that the House will agree that it is reasonable. We have seen an impressive commitment by the Royal Mail to the process of trying to ensure that we reduce the risk of not admitting votes that have been cast.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the election literature will refer to the fact that a sweep will be made between 4 o'clock and 6 o'clock on polling day? It is surely essential that potential voters should be told the position. If, for example, someone wakes up and realises on polling day that he has not put his ballot into the postbox, he should know of the option of posting it that morning rather than having to go to what may be a highly inconvenient supported delivery point, which he may decide not to do.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not wish to be abrupt, but that information would cloud and confuse the issue in a way that would increase risk. The best advice is to vote early if not often. Clearly, the advice is to get the vote in at the earliest possible opportunity. One may want to leave it until the last minute, and vote the day before, but why so? I do not wish to be pig headed about it, but while the Royal Mail will seek to reduce the risk of lost votes, one cannot be confident that it will always in all circumstances be able to sweep every post-box in such a limited time on the day. That may be difficult in some rural areas, for example, although it intends to try to do so.
	The policy guidance made it clear that we were talking about post-boxes within the regions themselves. If someone puts a vote in a postbox outside the region on the day before, it should be included and counted. But there is no possibility that the Post Office could scan all the post-boxes in London on the day of polling. Therefore, to put out advice that voters might get away with it if they vote on the day and if they make sure that they do so in a certain region would lead to a risky situation and confuse the public.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I wish to clarify my remark about votes following polling day. I understand from the policy paper—and welcome the fact—that the Electoral Commission will be asked to do a random selection test of the voting papers following the election to test for personation and fraud. Is that what page 15 of the policy paper means when it states that,
	"the Electoral Commission will look at the number of votes received after close of poll so it will be important for electoral administrators to keep records"?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, with great sorrow, I regret that we may be taking a compliment that we do not deserve. I shall have to get a copy of the policy paper, but my recollection on this issue is that we shall want to track the number of ballot papers that did not count because they came after the time of closing. That is the point to which we are referring now. It is for a good reason; we want to see who did not get their votes in on time.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, if I may assist the Minister, I presume that that refers to Amendment No. 34.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in the circumstances it is apparent that my Amendment No. 7 is based on the false assumption that the delivery of votes posted on Thursday would be handled by the normal postal delivery system and would therefore not arrive until Friday morning. As that assumption now appears to be false, I do not intend to press the amendment.
	I accept that this does not apply to ballots posted outside the pilot regions, but it is deeply unsatisfactory that people will not be told that a ballot posted within a pilot region before last post—before 4 o'clock in the afternoon—on polling day is likely to be delivered through the post on the day, and therefore will be included in the count. We do not seem to be giving voters full information that they can use to make up their minds about deferring posting their ballot paper until polling day.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. It is not about being unreasonable to the public, but about avoiding taking them into risk. The likelihood of a ballot failing to arrive on time would be substantially greater if we were to put out such advice. Therefore, we would be irresponsible to do so. At the same time, we need to try to ensure that if someone is misguided, mistaken or confused, his ballot will still count, if possible. There is nothing contradictory in those two positions.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I still think that that does not solve the problem. Of course it is right that people should be told that there is a risk and that their vote may not be delivered if they leave it until polling day. But someone may have been away from home; he may arrive back late on Wednesday evening, having missed the last collection on Wednesday, and would be prepared to take that risk. He may not be prepared to go to a supported delivery point.
	Having said that, there is nothing further that I can do. However, I regard it as highly undesirable that people should not be given the whole picture, including the risk of non-delivery if they leave it until the last possible day. As I said, it is clear from the policy paper that the amendment is based on a false assumption, so I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) The pilot order must make provision to ensure—
	(a) that all information provided is in a simple form, easily accessible to the elderly and disabled, and
	(b) that those with disabilities are able to exercise their vote independently and in secret."

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 8, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. Both amendments focus on ensuring that provisions are in place to allow disabled people to participate easily in an all-postal election.
	First, we still think it imperative to have an assurance on the face of the Bill that the details of the pilot order will state that information on voting will be in simple form and easily accessible to those with disabilities. The pilot order should also make it clear that those with disabilities can exercise their vote independently and in secret.
	Secondly, it is equally important that in Clause 4, which covers the report produced by the Electoral Commission, there is a specific duty on the commission to assess the extent to which the manner of elections facilitated voting for those with disabilities, having consulted such organisations or individuals representing disabled people as the commission considers appropriate.
	There was much discussion on those issues in Committee, and I was encouraged by the Minister's commitment to ensure that all necessary provisions would be made to allow those with disabilities to vote in an all-postal ballot. It is clear that there has been extensive consultation between the Government, the Disability Rights Commission and the RNIB. Both organisations set out a detailed briefing specifying their minimum requirements for providing for those with disabilities.
	They proposed that all electoral information must comply with RNIB's clear print guidelines. Information and instructions should be in a minimum of 14 point in plain English with clear information about access arrangements. Returning officers must be in a position to provide formats in large print, tape, Easy Read, Braille, disc and e-mail. The ballot paper must be compatible with the tactile voting device. Home visits or one-to-one assistance must be provided to disabled voters on request. Signature guides and other aids are to be provided to assist voters to sign the declaration of identity, and staffed delivery points must be accessible to disabled voters.
	There are many detailed requirements, and I thank the Minister for his letter of 6 February giving some commitment to meet the majority of those specifications. I thought that it might, however, be of benefit if the Minister could let us know whether there has been any further progress in facilitating voting for those with disabilities. For instance, there are several provisions mentioned in the policy paper—notably on page 18—which it would be helpful to have on record.
	We know that all-postal voting is an evolutionary process. It is designed to generate evidence and to test the waters to see if the method works. We therefore fully believe that our amendment, which specifies that the Electoral Commission must have regard to the accessibility of the election for those with disabilities, is vital in promoting best practice and gathering feedback from groups who represent disabled voters. I am sure that the Minister will assure us that this will go without saying. However, I prefer that it should be specified on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rennard and I have added our names to Amendments Nos. 8 and 32 which we fully support.
	We welcome the fact that the Government have gone some considerable way to meeting the requirements of the Disability Rights Commission and the RNIB. However, a number of outstanding questions remain. Certainly, the Disability Rights Commission considers that it is necessary to have clarity regarding the requirements for accessible information. It is imperative to get effective publicity arrangements in place.
	I refer to a number of specific points. The Disability Rights Commission is very concerned about the minimum of one supported delivery point per local authority area. That is not good enough given the mobility and transport barriers for many disabled people. It is good that SDP staff will be trained, but will they be adequately trained in disability access? Will there be a single helpline number with text phone and e-mail options? There is concern about the colour of the ballot forms. The Disability Rights Commission contends that the ballot forms should not only be coloured but should have the words, "white, lilac, grey" printed on them. It is also very concerned that one of the colours involved is grey, which as I understand it is a particularly difficult colour for people with some degree of visual impairment.
	The Government have said that election information will be made available in alternative formats which will definitely include tape and e-mail, and Braille on request. The Disability Rights Commission says that large print must also be available, that the expense of providing information in Braille on request is not great and should not be subject to an expense limit, and that clarification is needed on whether ballot papers will be available in anything other than large print. As I understand it, a number of unanswered questions still remain. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with some of them, if not today at any rate before Third Reading.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall do my best but I suspect that I shall need to take advantage of the latter suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I thank both Front Benches for acknowledging that we have worked with disability groups representing the interests of the disabled.
	Clearly, ensuring that an all-postal ballot is accessible to those with disabilities is of real importance to the Government and to the House. There is reasonable evidence that many if not all disabled people find postal balloting advantageous. I shall not discuss that point at length but the Polls Apart survey showed that 96 per cent thought that postal balloting was either convenient or very convenient—however, the survey covered a relatively small number of people—that some 91 per cent thought that it was either easy or very easy to use, that 75 per cent thought that it was a better system and that 82 per cent, given a choice, would prefer to vote by that method in the future.
	However, the fact that postal balloting appeals to many disabled people does not detract from the fact that one must work hard to make it as right as one can. The information has to be in a simple format. We spoke about that at some length in Committee. The pilots are concerned with making voting easier and therefore the information must be comprehensible to disabled people. Where we differ concerns the degree to which we specify exactly how to fulfil that objective. We believe that we must look to returning officers to follow good principles and good advice on how they do that. The Electoral Commission recently produced guidance on that issue entitled Equal access to electoral procedures. We believe that electoral administrators will utilise that guidance and we shall re-emphasise the importance of their doing so.
	As has been signalled, we distributed our policy paper, if not universally, which referred to disability issues. I wish to read into the record some of the relevant points in the policy paper which set out our position. Supported delivery points must be accessible for the disabled. It would be a nonsense for a building with the traditional 15 flights of town hall steps to be used as a supported delivery point. That would clearly discriminate against disabled people. Therefore, I want to put it beyond doubt that such buildings must meet adequately and fully the requirements of legislation on access for the disabled, or they should not be used.
	Electors will be able to request assistance with voting at an agreed place. For example, if a disabled person wants assistance, he or she can set up an appointment for that. Electoral administrators will make arrangements to deliver a tactile voting device to a blind or partially sighted elector to enable them to vote in private. Electoral administrators may, if requested, provide assistance, including marking ballot papers, for a disabled person at a supported delivery point. I shall consider whether the word "may" should be slightly stronger as it seems to me that it should be possible to assist disabled people in that way at an SDP. However, I make no commitment in that regard without reflecting on the matter. SDPs must have a large-scale version of the ballot paper available for voters to refer to.
	We are working hard to try to ensure that these measures are accessible for disabled people. We met representatives of SCOPE and the RNIB last week and we are certainly happy to continue an active discussion with disability groups. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the points that I have not covered.
	Amendment No. 32 would require the Electoral Commission to report on the extent to which pilots facilitated voting for those with disabilities. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that that should be done. However, both we and the Electoral Commission believe that that is already captured by Clause 4(6)(a) of the Bill which requires the commission to report on the extent to which the pilots facilitated voting at elections. The Electoral Commission has made it clear that it interprets that provision as it should do; namely, that it includes reporting on accessibility and convenience for those with disabilities, and that it will so report. Therefore, it is already charged with a statutory duty that addresses this issue and it has furthermore confirmed that it understands and interprets the measure as it should do.
	Although we do not agree with the letter of the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, we totally agree with the spirit of it and we believe that we shall give effect to it through the means that I specified. For those reasons I hope that the noble Earl will feel minded to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support. He asked a number of pertinent questions on which the Minister agreed to write to him. I hope that I and my noble friend Lady Hanham will receive a copy of the letter.
	The Minister said that postal voting has advantages for disabled people. By inference that comment applies to those with mobility challenges but we are concerned at the moment with those with sensory disabilities. The Minister appears to have taken on board our concerns for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) The pilot order must make provision for postal ballot papers relating to houses of multiple occupation (as defined in section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (meaning of "multiple occupation")) to be hand-delivered by an officer of the local authority who must make reasonable efforts to ensure that those to whom the votes are delivered are still in occupation on the premises."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 focuses on the problem of delivering ballot papers to houses in multiple occupation (HIMO), a matter on which we dwelt at length in Committee and which has already been touched on today. Several examples have been given, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, of abusers of votes that have been delivered to houses in multiple occupation. Since Committee stage I have had a number of representations made to me on the same basis, that it is an easy, open door to fraud.
	I emphasise that when we talk about houses in multiple occupation, we use the description defined in Section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 which covers a large range of communal living establishments: homes, residential homes, student halls and so on. We are very concerned about the possibility in such places of a number of ballot papers being posted through the door, collected up by one person and filled out, either without the knowledge of those to whom the postal ballot was sent, or for people who no longer reside in the house in multiple occupation. If there is one place where the population turns over quickly, it is in a house in multiple occupation. There are many examples of a 50 per cent change over between the electoral register being created and the election taking place. It is not a simple problem but a significant one.
	In care homes for the sick or elderly or in student accommodation, people may be completely unaware that any elections are taking place in which they have a right to vote. If their voting papers vanish in the interim, they will be more unaware and the papers will be of no use to them. I was pleased to hear the Minister say in Committee that he would consider the matter further before Report and that he understood the concern surrounding it. However, the noble Lord said that our approach was too much of a burden administratively, it gave no assurance that fraud would not take place and it was too prescriptive. Instead, he advocated leaving the issue up to the discretion of the local regional returning officers.
	Nevertheless, despite such caveats, on page 17 of the policy paper some encouraging comments appear. Having said that, as I mentioned when speaking to the Liberal Democrat amendment, we are grateful to the Government for picking up some of our suggestions and putting them in the policy paper. However, here the matter is to be left to the discretion of the regional returning officers and it will not be a mandatory provision that they provide a hand-delivered service.
	The Government have clearly conceded in principle that hand delivery would be one way of tightening up the procedures. We would like that to be compulsory for all the reasons that I have given. If left to the discretion of the regional returning officers, the worry is that they will try to justify the risk as not very great, and therefore not put in place provisions to implement the suggestion. The timescale is short and we know that the returning officers will be rushed to put in place all the necessary provisions for the election, but one or two examples of voting going wrong in HIMOs will be enough to put a question mark over the whole postal voting system. Therefore, I believe that it would be appropriate for there to be a mandatory requirement that the papers had to be hand-delivered to the premises and at least some check made that they were delivered to people who still lived there. I beg to move.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness and corroborate what she said about the practicalities of houses in multiple occupation. Unlike a house with one family in residence, if 10 or 15 people live in a house in multiple occupation, the turnover is very great. Electoral registers are regularly out of date before they have even been printed because people move on. Many itinerants and drifters tend to migrate in and out of houses in multiple occupation.
	The danger of the theft of mail in such properties is one that was regularly drawn to my attention when I represented an inner-city area. Theft of mail was a regular occurrence. Mail would just be pushed through the door of a house in multiple occupation or there could be lots of pigeon holes and boxes inside where letters could be left so that anyone would be free to walk into those properties and simply take away all the correspondence that had been placed there. Sometimes if money were sent through the post, that could lead to people being financially much worse off.
	I believe that there is a real danger that the situation could be open to abuse by those who want to manipulate or to distort the outcome of an election. They could simply raid the communal boxes or take the mail that may be strewn across the doorstep, which is regularly the case when one walks into a house in multiple occupation, walk off with the ballot papers and commit the kind of fraud to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has referred.
	The amendment is very reasonable and I wish that it went slightly further. The noble Baroness has framed it in a moderate way. She is asking for the ballot papers to be hand delivered and the amendment refers to,
	"reasonable efforts to ensure that those to whom the votes are delivered",
	actually receive them. One could go further than that. I believe that there should be a way of verifying, such as signing a form, that people have received the ballot, so that it is known that ballot papers have arrived in the hands of those for whom they are intended. I hope that between now and Third Reading the Minister will reflect on the matter. It is a very proper concern and one that the Government should take seriously.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree that, like previous issues with which we have dealt today, this is important. It goes to the heart of ensuring that there is confidence in the postal balloting system on which we are conducting the pilots. Before noble Lords get too excited that I am about to make some major concession, I shall explain why we think that what the Electoral Commission has advised, with which we agree, is right.
	Essentially the commission has advised that the returning officers should be charged, in their local situations, with the responsibility of seeing how best to manage the potential for risk in houses in multiple occupation. That is for a good reason rather than being just a "they say it's all right, leave it to them" type of approach. Two sets of issues intersect at the same time on this matter. We are talking about situations in which common mail is delivered through a front door and it sits in a common place until people pick it up. I was reflecting that my London residence has just such a system. That may or may not be a HIMO. There can be some HIMOs—if I can use that slang—as defined in the Act mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. In some situations, flats are in HIMOs and yet the postal delivery is secure.
	A further point is that not all houses in multiple occupation automatically have high turnovers, but many do, such as the kind about which we are talking, the classic lodging house situations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or where there is a large churning of people and therefore the risk of a large amount of voting literature being around. In other HIMOs there can be a stable population; for example, long-term homes for the elderly where facilities are shared.
	There are a number of different situations. As I do not believe that it makes sense for the Government or even the Electoral Commission to specify a rule that would apply across those different situations, the proper approach is to look clearly at the guidance that we and the Electoral Commission are putting out, make clear the potential of risk, and make clear the responsibility to try to manage risk by thinking about the issue. If anything, I shall look at the guidance to see whether that is clear or not in what it says about the management of risk in local situations. I believe that is what we are talking about.
	Further, as we signalled previously, this will highlight what the post-election research must consider and whether there are problems of abuse that have not been trapped. I suggest, with respect, that that is the proper way to try to manage the risks, without in any sense implying that we are not treating the issue seriously.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I remain concerned about his reply, but I shall not take the matter any further at this stage. However, because the Electoral Commission is beginning to develop its guidance, it would be helpful to see at least some of it before we progress to a later stage. There are two matters that will be fundamental to the consequences of the Bill: first, the contents of the pilot order; and, secondly, the Electoral Commission's guidance.
	Both now and in Committee we have raised real and practical concerns, based on other peoples'—and partly our own—knowledge of what can cause an election to be flawed. I would be grateful to see what is proposed and to have an opportunity to comment. I accept that making a returning officer deliver ballot papers by hand may be too onerous, but I shall look at the matter again before the next stage. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) The pilot order must make provision for the electors in each relevant European electoral region and associate local government regions to have easy access to supported delivery points."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the amendment is about how many supported delivery points there are in a region holding a pilot election. The Government will be pleased to see that we have dropped our original amendment incorporated in our new clause in Committee on the administration of the pilot election. There we endeavoured to specify that there should be an obligation on local authorities and returning officers to ensure that any elector who wished to do so could vote in the traditional way in a ballot box at a polling station on 10 June. We have listened to the Government's detailed description on the proposed supported delivery points and we thank the Minister for the extra detail spelt out in the policy paper on pages 12 and 13.
	We are happy in principle with the current proposals. We have been told by the Government that,
	"at a supported delivery point it will be possible to return a completed ballot paper; complete a ballot paper in a private area—with some form of assistance if required; and view the explanatory literature about the elections".
	Our concerns focus on how many SDPs will be provided. In Committee we specified in an amendment that every local government ward in each region piloting the elections should have a facility for posting a ballot form in person on the main day of polling. We have had a rethink after reading the Minister's response to that amendment and the subsequent comments of other noble Lords during the debate. Somehow we wish to channel the discretion of the electoral administrators in the number of delivery points that there should be in each local government area.
	We know that at least one SDP will be provided in each principal local government area, but with the ability for electoral administrators to provide more at their discretion. That is intended to cover those local government areas where transport links are poor or the area is particularly large. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out perceptively in Committee,
	"it is not very likely that local authorities will incur the expense of doing that".—[Official Report, 26/1/04; col. GC46.]
	It is further emphasised by the comments in the policy paper on page 13:
	"In considering the number and opening hours of delivery points, electoral administrators will need to take into account that delivery points in the local government all-postal pilots were only used by a very small minority of the electorate . . . and that a strong case will need to be made before the costs of additional delivery points are paid".
	I fear that it is unlikely that such a "strong case" will be made and that there may be failure by local authorities to exercise that discretion to provide extra delivery points.
	Will the Minister comment on that discretion? Is there any recourse to demand more than one delivery point in particular local government areas? Can the Minister clarify the idea behind the comment in the policy paper that, at least,
	"one SDP will be open in each local authority area on the day of the poll"?
	If a number of SDPs were made available after ballot papers were sent out, would not confusion be caused if only one was available on polling day?
	The amendment would place an obligation on electoral administrators to make sure that all voters in the pilot elections had "easy access" to a delivery point. That may be a subjective turn of phrase, but it makes the point that electoral administrators have a responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient points. It would then be possible under Clause 4 for the Electoral Commission to examine whether that was the case and if not, why not. That would focus the efforts of the electoral administrators in each local government area to examine properly the convenience of the location of the delivery points—and thereby the convenience for the electorate. I beg to move.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, the supported delivery points are important and will be of assistance to a number of voters. Lack of privacy is among the concerns that we have had about people voting by post. In some cases people might prefer to enjoy the spirit of going along to the polling station and perhaps feeling that they can vote in privacy without other members of the household seeing how they are casting their vote. The problem with the amendment is over how one defines "easy access".
	I have already made my own representations about the order, with some suggestions that may be helpful. Providing one supported delivery point in each council area may not be nearly sufficient. For example, that would mean that if there was a pilot in Manchester there would be only one supported delivery point in the whole city. Perhaps in Newcastle, where we now think that the proposals will happen, the appropriate number of SDPs may be one per local government ward. In a principal local authority the order could say that there should be one special delivery point per local government ward. Beyond that we might leave the decision to the returning officer's discretion, but at least it would provide more guidance on the number of points that would be appropriate.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, this is again one of those classic debates that we have, whichever party is in government, about the degree to which one specifies the means as well as the ends. The House will be aware of our broad position on the matter—that a balance has to be struck between ensuring that at least one supported delivery point is provided in each principal local government area and giving discretion to electoral administrators to provide more when they believe that that is sensible and desirable.
	Clearly we are talking about all-postal ballots, not dual running. We are not talking about having both, but at what level we need to have a facility for those who wish physically to cast a vote in person, for any reason, or to vote late on the last day—or for any other reason. It is germane that extremely limited use has been made of supported delivery points in previous pilots. Our evidence from the survey has been that the average was that about 2 per cent of electors used a supported delivery point. The highest case was in Darlington, where 3.7 per cent of electors chose to use the SDP. It is particularly interesting that there has been no correlation between the number of SDPs provided and the number of people who used them, which is slightly counter-intuitive.
	In Guildford, four delivery points were provided in a previous local government pilot postal election and 2.2 per cent of electors chose to use them. By comparison, in Gateshead 16 delivery points were provided, yet the number of electors who chose to use them remained at just 2.2 per cent. In Doncaster, 21 delivery points were used by only 1.93 per cent. That is a variation which shows that while we are right to say that such a facilities must be provided, it is hardly the most persuasive case for the Government to prescribe how many should be set up.
	I shall take on board the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, concerning point 10.4 of the guidance. I believe that we need to reflect on whether confusion arises as a result of some SDPs being open on the day and some not. I do not wish to raise excitement on that point but, if a local authority has more than one SDP, we may need to reflect on the level of burden involved in keeping it open on the day rather than shutting it beforehand. However, perhaps I may reflect on that matter without giving a commitment.
	At heart, we feel that responsibility for deciding on the level of additional SDPs to be provided should be placed on returning officers. I do not believe that we can easily specify that with a rule from government. Certainly, as I believe I signalled at earlier stages to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, it would be very burdensome to specify that there should be one for every electoral ward. For those reasons, I hope that, at least for now, the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much. I want to question one figure. With regard to the pilot that has already taken place, did he refer to no more than 2 or 3 per cent of the electorate or 2 or 3 per cent of those voting? We really need to know the answer to that.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness's hearing was as acute as ever. I referred to the electorate entitled to vote. Therefore, the proportion of those who voted would obviously be higher.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I believe that that is slightly more significant. If there is a 30 per cent turnout and one or two in 30 voters use the delivery point, that amounts to many more people than I believe was being suggested or than the figure which was sliding under the radar as the Minister was talking.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that it makes a difference but it is not a massive difference. We are talking about 2 per cent of the electorate who use the SDPs and about 4 per cent of those casting votes. Therefore, it makes a difference but we are still talking about very small proportions.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I shall not trade mathematics with the Minister across the Table. However, I calculate that, with a turnout of 30 per cent, about 6 per cent of voters would use the SDPs. I believe that shows that there is probably sufficient demand to ensure more than one SDP in any given local government area.
	I also believe that one should be careful about where the supported delivery points are placed. In some areas, people will have to travel a long way to use them. They need to be as local as they can be to a substantial part of the electorate—I say "electorate" and not necessarily those voting.
	I shall not push this matter further but I believe that the point must be understood. We must stop using the word "electorate" in terms of these percentages and revert to talking about the percentage of those who vote because that presents an entirely different picture. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 11, I must inform your Lordships that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

Lord Norton of Louth: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 2, line 15, leave out subsections (4) to (6).

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, this amendment stems from the discussion in Committee on clause stand part. On that occasion I raised the issue of whether or not providing polling progress information to political parties, as required under subsection (4), was compatible with the European convention.
	The Minister will be aware that the Electoral Commission sought counsel's opinion on the provision to the parties of a marked register. The advice was that disclosing information in the way intended altered the balance between the party and the elector to the extent that it might constitute an invasion of privacy. The provision may thus amount to a disproportionate infringement of Article 8 and/or Article 3 of Protocol I of the convention.
	I appreciate that the Government have taken advice. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, included some details in his letter to my noble friend Lady Hanham on 6 February. That advice is that postal voting is compatible with the convention. I have no difficulty with that. The issue here is not postal voting but the provision to political parties of a marked register. The issue is specific and independent of the method of voting. Indeed, the opinion provided to the Electoral Commission raises a question about the post-election accessibility of a marked register under the existing arrangements.
	The nub of the problem can be put very briefly. Under the traditional method of voting—voting in person at a polling booth—a voter can refuse to disclose his or her identity to party tellers standing outside the polling booth. Under the provisions of this clause, the voters have no right to withhold their identity. The information is disclosed by virtue of subsection (4). Electors could, of course, opt to cast a ballot in person at an SDP on polling day, but that does not solve the problem: it will already have been disclosed to the parties that they have not voted.
	At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, suggested that voting is a public act. I appreciate that point. However, as I pointed out in Committee, if postal voting is a public act, then so, too, is voting in person at a polling booth. The rights exercised by voters must be the same in both situations.
	There is therefore a problem. I fully appreciate why this provision was introduced. I recognise the convenience to political parties of acquiring such information in fulfilling their vital role in the electoral process. We should be doing what we can to assist political parties as essential actors in the political process. However, doing so in this way may fall foul of the provisions of the convention.
	The solution, as the advice given to the Electoral Commission indicates, is either to prohibit access to the marked register before the close of poll or to introduce safeguards. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wondered why the register was marked in advance of polling day. I think it would be helpful to know why this practice has been introduced. Prohibiting access would be one solution; not recording who has voted prior to polling day would, of course, ensure that such access was impossible. In terms of safeguards, one option is to provide for an opt-out for those who do not wish to be solicited by political parties.
	I tend to go for the clean option, as I did when we discussed the sale of the electoral register to commercial concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, may have many recollections of our debates on that topic. I favoured banning its sale. Instead, we ended up with the somewhat messy option of an opt-out. If we are to go down the route of providing polling progress information, I fear we shall end up with another opt-out provision.
	However, providing for such an opt-out will be difficult in relation to the June elections. It is too late for electors to indicate an opt-out preference on the electoral registration form. I suppose that it might just be possible to have an opt-out provision for those elections by giving electors the right to inform the electoral registration officer that their names are to be annotated in the register to show that whether or not they have voted is not to be disclosed to the parties, although the annotation would be. That might just meet the point but it would require amendments to the Bill.
	In short, the provision for providing polling progress information is potentially flawed. I believe that the safest course of action, which would not undermine the purpose of the Bill, would be to remove this particular provision. As I say, I appreciate why it was introduced but I think that, having been put in, the wisest course may be to take it out. I beg to move.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, a number of our debates have dwelt on the issue of turnout and have brought up the controversy about whether or not to have more postal voting in order to improve turnout. Here, we are dealing with a measure which may or may not assist political parties in encouraging turnout in the elections. There is something of an irony in that. If we are trying to encourage participation in the democratic process, on balance I feel that the parties must have that information if they are to encourage people to participate and send back their votes.
	I note the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in relation to privacy. However, it seems to me that many people are unaware that the list of those who have voted in a normal public election at a polling station is made available to the parties afterwards. That may not be commonly known, but if that list is available to the parties some time after the election, I do not see why there should be a problem in making available to the parties, before postal voting takes place in a pilot, the list of the people who have voted thus far so that they can chase up those who have not voted.
	Compared with information on polling day, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, refers to how people may not choose to give to a party teller at the polling station their voting number or their address. But short of wearing a disguise, many people are actually recognised at the polling station when they go to vote. If they walk into a polling station in the normal election it is known whether they have voted and therefore someone has noted that they have not been so far in the day and they may get a call from the party at a later stage on polling day asking them to vote.
	A number of safeguards may be necessary. I am concerned about how we might protect privacy. It seems very important that the parties provided with this information treat it with the same degree of confidentiality as they do the electoral register. Three or four years ago we added safeguards to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act to prevent commercial organisations acquiring the electoral register. A coach and horses would be driven through those provisions if anybody was able to get hold of a list of who has voted by post so far, who has not, and make use of those lists. Safeguards must be built in. It is generally assumed that the parties will not pass this information on: that is a safeguard that voters probably generally need to have.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I should like to add a point to what my noble friend has just said. The marked register in a normal polling station election is not available to political parties. It is available to anybody who wants to avail themselves of that facility. They may be representing political parties on 99 per cent of occasions, but anybody can inspect the marked register and obtain copies of it; not all candidates belong to political parties.
	There is a crucial issue of principle here as to whether the act of voting is and should be a private act. I argue that it is not a private act; it should not be a private act, and if it ever became a private act that would be another blow to the integrity of the ballot.
	Before the Ballot Act 1872, you had to turn up in person to vote and declare how you were voting. Either you declared it on the hustings or it was written in a register, which was then published. The ballot was not secret. But the second part of the integrity of the ballot, in addition to secrecy, is that the person voting is the person to whom the vote is allocated, who appears on the electoral register and who is entitled to cast that vote. Unless a list is available, at least after the election, of who actually voted, it is impossible to check whether fraud or personation took place, whether somebody tried to rig the election, or whether an individual tried to cast a vote, for whatever reason, which he was not entitled to cast.
	All the talk of the Human Rights Act and so on interfering with the process is potentially disastrous. It is absolutely essential once the election has taken place that we can find out who purported to vote. If you cannot do that there is no way you can start making complaints and no way that you can really investigate close elections that might have been rigged in some way.
	The issue here is that on a normal polling day, at a polling station, a political party is perfectly entitled to appoint polling agents who are entitled to keep their own marked register while they sit inside the polling station. So the political party itself, or rather the representative of a candidate at the election, is entitled at the close of poll at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. to walk out with a marked register. What they are not entitled to do—and what is an election offence—is to tell people who has and has not voted during the hours of poll. That is why I am concerned that what is proposed for postal elections and what has happened in some of the postal elections so far is different from the practice in a polling station.
	I am not saying which is right or wrong, although we have to think what we will all be doing during those two weeks after the postal votes are posted out and received by people. When I say "what we are all doing", perhaps I am not speaking for everybody in your Lordships' House, but I am certainly speaking for myself and I am sure for some of my noble friends. We will be chasing up those electors whom we believe were voting for us, and whom we believe have not returned their ballot papers. That is what we will spend a fortnight doing. It may be a foolish way to spend a fortnight but the Government want the polling day to be a fortnight and not a day, so what we do normally during the hours of polling on polling day we will do over two weeks—if we get all-postal elections in our areas. It is in that context that this issue has to be looked at.
	On balance the Government are probably right to want to issue a list of who has voted at a particular stage, simply because if they do not a lot of people will be bothered by frantic politicians, not just for two or three hours in the evening of polling day, but for a fortnight, which is not good. There is a real problem here. The Government in the longer term—if all-postal ballots become more frequent and the marked register during the campaign becomes an accepted fact—must look at polling day legislation and see whether the rules on polling day ought to be changed and whether there is any good reason why who has voted during the day on polling day should continue to remain secret.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I was not going to intervene but this has stirred up my recollection of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said earlier. He gave a very graphic description of what would happen if all-postal votes became a generality. He said that there would be a disconnection between the candidates and the electorate. It is one of the reasons why, although we see some of the difficulties, we do think that it is important to have access to the list of people who have voted. It is absolutely clear that that does not mean a description of how they voted—they may have spoilt their ballot paper within the envelope—but the mere fact that they have voted means that candidates can concentrate on those who have not voted.
	It may be that all electors will be thrilled to bits that nobody calls on them ever again—neither rings them up nor has a go at them, but it is not what our system allows for. As long as we have a party political system where candidates are trying to present their manifestos and themselves to the electorate then it seems perfectly proper that there is some way of knowing when and at what time people return their ballot papers, or whether they have returned them at a given stage. I see that the policy paper allows for that—it suggests that the political parties within each area should come to a conclusion with the electoral officer as to how they want that information to be presented. That seems fair and reasonable.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, there has been an extremely interesting debate on this amendment. We know why it is an issue. Strong representations were made by political parties in the other place that a marked register should be distributed during the period of the election campaign. That was in part for a party political reason but also for a good reason, that reason being that by so doing it was more likely that more people would be encouraged, assisted and persuaded to vote. The problem for the political parties is the fact that you can lobby and take someone to the polling station, but that does not necessarily mean that they will vote for you as a consequence. Nevertheless, there is a good intent which goes beyond party politics that sits beneath this and since this issue is above all about trying to increase the electorate's participation in elections it is in alignment with that central thrust.
	What is interesting in what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, advanced is the question of ECHR compliance. I want to reflect on that point; I do not want to busk at the Dispatch Box on it. But if it were thought that the right to privacy might be infringed, one could well see that what was given as the advice on all-postal balloting would apply also; in other words, that it was balanced by the wider benefit of increasing the electoral turnover. Perhaps I may reflect on that and send a letter to the noble Lord before Third Reading, with a copy, as usual, to the Opposition Front Benches. Clearly, if we think that it is compliant I shall just set out in the letter why we consider it to be so.
	The second issue raised by the noble Lord is whether, if there is a risk of infringement of privacy, there is a way around that which does not frustrate the legitimate ambition of the political parties to have a marked register. Essentially he asked whether it would be possible to have an opt-out at the time of the register which would replicate that which takes place outside a polling station; that is, when someone is asked "What is your name and have you voted?", for the person to be able to say, "No, I shan't tell you".
	The noble Lord is right that it would be impossible to do that in time for the June election. However, perhaps we should reflect on that without implying that we shall concede the point. I believe that was the nub of the point raised; namely, whether there is a way which does not frustrate the ability of political parties to affect turn-out but which allows an elector to have privacy.For the reasons I have given, apart from promising to send the noble Lord a letter before Third Reading, I do not believe that we should accept the amendment. As stated by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Greaves, there is a good reason for the marked register being issued to political parties. I believe that that outweighs the other interests advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. With that explanation, I hope that he will be minded to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by agreeing with the Minister that this has been an interesting albeit short debate which raised relevant points. I shall make three brief points in response. First, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is right; at the heart of this matter is the question of getting the balance right. The Minister recognised that in agreeing to reflect on this in the light of the convention. I very much welcome his comments in that regard.
	Secondly, the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Greaves, raised important issues concerning access to the marked register, including the present arrangements, which take us beyond what is at the heart of my amendment. There is a much wider issue on which we should reflect in respect of that which is independent of the Bill.
	Thirdly, nothing which was said undermines the provision of a safeguard, for example in the form of an opt-out. I appreciate that the Minister cannot make any commitment on that. As he said, in effect one is looking to the future, although I suspect very much that we shall end up at that point. However, I am grateful for what the Minister said and for what he has promised to do. In the light of that I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 19 en bloc:
	Page 2, line 15, leave out first "The" and insert "A"
	Page 2, line 16, leave out "the election" and insert "a pilot election"
	Page 2, line 26, leave out second "the" and insert "a"
	Page 2, line 26, after "order" insert "relating to a pilot region"
	Page 2, line 27, leave out "a region specified in the main order" and insert "the region"
	Page 2, line 30, leave out "each region specified in the main order" and insert "the region"
	Page 2, line 32, leave out first "the" and insert "a"
	Page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State must not make a pilot order unless he first consults the Electoral Commission.
	( ) It is immaterial whether such consultation occurs before or after the passing of this Act."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12 to 19 are consequential to Amendment No. 3 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, which amends government Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 20:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
	"ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF POSTAL VOTING
	(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order under section 2 unless the chief executive of each of the postal authorities involved has made a written statement that he has made alternative arrangements for the delivery and return of postal ballots in the event of a postal service being suspended for whatever reason.
	(2) The Secretary of State must place a copy of each statement made in pursuance of subsection (1) in the Library of the House of Commons not less than two months before the election."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we return to the technicalities of postal voting in terms of the role of the Royal Mail. We tabled this amendment in Committee to try to provide an assurance from the Royal Mail that all necessary provisions had been undertaken in relation to all-postal ballots.
	At Second Reading a lot of scepticism was voiced by noble Lords from all sides of the House and in another place about the ability of the Royal Mail to handle an all-postal vote on such a large scale. Subsequently, we have seen the policy paper which I understand was the result of talks between the Royal Mail and the Electoral Commission. I was heartened initially by the amount of detail in the policy paper on the formatting of envelopes containing ballots and how the return process will work with special envelopes, barcodes and postcodes to assist the Royal Mail for easy identification during the sorting process. That helped to alleviate some of my concern over the possibility of ballot papers getting lost in the post.
	However, I still have considerable unease about the contingency plans were there to be a strike or some other disruption to the Royal Mail service. As I understand the policy paper, the process would be to find any electoral post within the system and return that to the electoral administrators and then to seal up post boxes and provide instead ordinary delivery points. It is that second stage on which I wish to probe the Minister. We hear that the returning officers may use their discretion to employ ordinary delivery points (ODPs); that such ODPs must provide a delivery/drop off/ballot box that is securely stored and monitored but without an area to complete ballot papers in private or staff to provide assistance. Moreover, the way in which these ODPs are to be publicised is unclear as are the staffing provisions. Can the Minister shed any more light on those provisions? I am concerned primarily about the vagueness of whether an ODP is to be a delivery or drop-off point or a ballot box. Which is it to be? Also, where will they be located? Will there be the same amount as conventional post-boxes? How will they be advertised?
	I am afraid to say that the contingency plans are not sufficient to assure me at present that the Royal Mail can guarantee delivery of votes in the case of a strike or other disruption. I have just seen the letter which was sent to the Minister by the Royal Mail and I am bound to say that it is about as woolly as I would not have wished. It is not at all clear. It simply states that the Post Office has contingency arrangements and that it will endeavour to try to deliver all the postal ballots to the returning officer.
	Trying and endeavouring to deliver ballot papers simply is not good enough. If people vote—unless they vote late and that is their fault—they expect their ballot papers to be with the returning officer. We all know that from time to time there are localised skirmish strikes. That happens in all kinds of industries. It is crucial that the Royal Mail has a robust provision for dealing with that. I can see that it may not want particularly to say what that is because that would give the hand away. However, we have to move the Royal Mail from a spirit of "endeavour" to a spirit of guarantee. The letter which I saw was completely insufficient in that regard. What is even more salient is that it was originally sent to the Government in December and could have been made available to us at a far earlier stage so that we could discuss it in detail.
	I remain extremely concerned about the contingency provisions of the Royal Mail to deliver in the face of a crisis. We have amended the Bill to cover two circumstances so we are probably reducing the area of concern and impact. However, this must not go wrong. If the Royal Mail is to do this job, it must be in a position to ensure that every ballot paper posted on time is returned to the returning officer. After all, that is what happens when people put their votes into a ballot box; they are guaranteed to arrive. We should not expect any less from a postal ballot. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am happy to return to this issue which we discussed in Committee. First, one should mark that we are talking about low risk. That does not mean that there is no risk, but we are talking about a low-risk situation of industrial action either nationwide or in some of the returning areas concerned in the June pilot. Clearly, there is currently a risk—it does not happen that often but it is perfectly conceivable—that local authority staff could strike. That, in itself, could cause problems for an election. Such things have happened.
	We have sought to ensure that, for what are low risks, contingency plans are put in place which are as robust as possible. In Grand Committee we passed on a commitment by Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Royal Mail, to write giving his assurance that robust contingency plans are being put in place for postal arrangements. That letter, as has been signalled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has now been copied, I trust, to the Front Benches.
	This issue is clearly one of credibility for the Royal Mail. One could not have an issue more damaging to its reputation if it fails to deliver the election in these regions. That consequence would be such a contradiction of our democratic process. The Royal Mail is well seized of the importance of fulfilling the expectations. We are confident that it has treated the issue with the level of management and chief executive and chairman attention that one would expect in the situation.
	Local plans will be drawn up for every local authority area. The plans will include the local returning officer, the local Royal Mail management and Royal Mail customer operations managers to address how they would deal with risk in those situations.
	All such plans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, will not be publicised—for reasons I think she respects—but they will be quality assured by the central Royal Mail team to see whether they look robust. There will be a further oversight of the process by a project board, which includes senior DCA and ODPM officials and other senior stakeholders. So I believe that we, the Royal Mail and the returning officers are going a long way to try to ensure that there are very strong contingency plans in the event of industrial action.
	The noble Baroness raised a number of points about ordinary delivery points, on which I may have to write to her. But I would expect that the ordinary delivery points would be mostly dropping-off points where one can post one's ballot paper rather than being like SDPs where, in the usual case, one could go and vote. I am sure that that would be the likelihood, but I should like to give the noble Baroness more information on that point and will do so via a letter.
	We have sought, both by the processes that we have put in place prior to Committee and the Bill and by giving a fairly public commitment from the chief executive of Royal Mail about how seriously this issue is being taken, to demonstrate that there is some very serious contingency planning, albeit for a small risk. While I may not have totally satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on this issue, I hope that she recognises that it is treated extremely seriously by returning officers and the Royal Mail.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. There is not much point in taking the matter any further at this stage. I shall obviously want to re-read the letter from the Royal Mail, which I saw very briefly. I am still slightly concerned that the facilities are not robust enough, but we shall have to look at that further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 [Electoral Commission report]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) After a pilot election has been held, the Electoral Commission must prepare a report in relation to it."

Lord Filkin: Amendment No. 21 is another consequential amendment. We spoke to it previously. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Fookes: If Amendment No. 22 is passed, I cannot call Amendment No. 23 by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Electoral Commission must consult the council for every county and district in the region in which the pilot election was held."

Lord Filkin: Government Amendment No. 22 is essentially an alternative drafting of Amendment No. 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. It would ensure that, when producing its report, the Electoral Commission had a duty to consult all district or county councils in a pilot region. The discretion with regard to other tiers of local government would remain in place, although this will now be implicit rather than explicitly stated.
	An amendment was tabled in Grand Committee that would have compelled the Electoral Commission to consult all local authorities in a pilot region. That was resisted on the basis that in some areas it would involve consulting perhaps hundreds and hundreds of parish councils. I am sure that that was not the intent behind it. Therefore, we have tabled this amendment to address the issue and to put it beyond doubt that the obligation will be to consult principal authorities. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I merely thank the Minister for the amendment. It takes account almost entirely of the amendment that we moved in Grand Committee and, indeed, that which we have put down today as Amendment No. 23. It is a sensible outcome. Many of the other relevant authorities of course are within the local pilot areas, but I am satisfied that sufficient account will be taken of everyone who has taken part in the pilot to ensure that we get a report that matches up to what we would expect and that gives us an opportunity to see for the future how things have worked. Having said that, I clearly will not take Amendment No. 23 any further because I will not be allowed to.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 3, line 16, leave out "elections" and insert "election"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) making arrangements for the inspection of a sample of ballot papers to ascertain whether there is evidence (even where no allegation has been made to that effect) of personation or other electoral offences or malpractice"

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 25, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33. We decided to return to this amendment, which we debated during Grand Committee. At that stage we received some positive answers from the Minister, but nothing that we believed was sufficient to set our minds at ease concerning the issues of fraud and malpractice.
	The greater potential for electoral fraud and malpractice which all-postal voting creates is evident to noble Lords. We have conceded that, despite these potential abuses, it is worthwhile trying out a system of all-postal voting in European parliamentary and local government elections.
	However, it would be irresponsible to do so without trying to set out as many safeguards as possible on the face of the Bill and in the pilot order to try to minimise such abuses. That is one issue that the Government are indeed taking seriously. We can see from the policy paper that they have put forward a number of suggestions about how fraud can be countered. These include extending the penalties for personation, providing security at SDPs and in the processing of ballots and so on.
	Our question, however, is how we know whether this is successful in stopping electoral malpractice. What of the coercion, intimidation or selling of votes that we know occasionally happens? What of the shared households where ballot papers could simply be scooped up and returned by one person? We need not only to guard against that sort of behaviour, but also to know how prevalent it was in the election.
	Our amendment picks up that point. It focuses on Clause 4—the report that the Electoral Commission draws up on how the pilot went. There are a number of criteria, which explain who must be consulted and what kind of things should be contained in the report. Subsection (3) obliges the local authorities in the region to assist the commission in preparing its report. Subsection (4) explains that this assistance may include asking the electors their views on the administration of the elections. Paragraph (b) refers to,
	"reporting to the Commission allegations of personation and of other electoral offences or malpractice".
	Our amendment would insert a further manner of assistance as paragraph (c):
	"making arrangements for the inspection of a sample of ballot papers to ascertain whether there is evidence (even where no allegation has been made to that effect) of personation or other electoral offences or malpractice".
	The basis for our amendment is straightforward. We do not think that the local authority should merely report allegations which it has received about personation, but it should be obliged to do spot checks to ascertain whether malpractice has taken place.
	The process should be proactive, not merely a case of reacting to allegations. That is clearly a vital part in collating evidence to see whether the all-postal voting system works on balance. It is designed to encourage voter participation. But if that is at the expense of a far greater increase in malpractice, either more protections need to be put in place or we need to think again about using it as a system for elections.
	Research has to be done into whether the type of electoral malpractice that I mentioned earlier—the bullying, intimidation, vote buying or vote usurpation in houses in multiple occupation—is taking place. Anyone who is a victim of such malpractice is probably unlikely to report it. We need a duty on the local electoral administrators to go out into the community and ask a random sample of those who have voted whether they were party to any malpractice.
	The policy paper which the Government have put out accepts the rationale behind our amendments. Paragraph 14.3 on page 16 mentions further provisions to tackle fraud which, we learn,
	"may be included within a pilot order or may be provided in the discretion of the RROs".
	One of those, paragraph 14.3.4, mentions,
	"checks with a sample of people marked as having returned a ballot paper to check that they did send in the papers and were not coerced in the process of completing and returning them".
	It appears that the Government can see the sense in our proposed amendment. Many of our concerns are covered by their Amendment No. 34. Our only difference is that we make it an explicit duty of every local authority that co-operates with the Electoral Commission in gathering the evidence on the success or otherwise of the election.
	Spot checks or random sampling is the only means by which it is possible to get any representative idea of how common electoral malpractice is, or is not.
	Amendment No. 33 deals with the issue of secrecy. We have had several discussions during the debate today and in Grand Committee on the problems of secrecy in all-postal voting. I will not rehearse them all again now, but will outline where our thinking has got to since our discussions in Grand Committee. As a newcomer to this area of policy, the contribution during Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was very helpful to me in understanding how important secrecy in the ballot is.
	We know that the Government are taking this issue very seriously. I was gladdened to see several references to secrecy in paragraph 14 of the policy paper. Paragraph 14.3.5 mentions the,
	"inclusion of secrecy warnings on voting and proxy voting literature".
	Paragraph 14.3.7 proposes,
	"extending the scope of secrecy rules to cover all postal provisions to require those serving in a delivery place, and those providing assistance, and observers to abide by the secrecy rules".
	We are pleased to see that these are both intended to be mandatory provisions.
	While these proposals on secrecy are a positive step forward, we still believe that there is a need for something more specific in the Bill. We are therefore grateful for the last line of government Amendment No. 34, which will require the Electoral Commission to include in its report an assessment of whether the piloted system undermined,
	"the secrecy of the ballot".
	Given the many ECHR concerns in relation to secrecy which were discussed in Committee and today, it is vital that secrecy is included as a separate point for consideration.
	Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 35 lies within this group. That would require the Electoral Commission to carry out something like a market research exercise after the elections to research whether personation or electoral offences had taken place. It may be necessary because some might feel that such research techniques might contravene the principle of secrecy without legislative authority.
	From the Minister's comments at cols. GC208–09 of Hansard for 29 January, the Government may concede on this amendment now it has been revised since Committee stage.
	We support the amendment entirely. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, may I start by returning the compliment to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in saying that while he supports our Amendment No. 35, we equally support his Amendments Nos. 25 and 33.
	It is important that the Electoral Commission should look carefully—and in as much detail as possible—into the question of possible personation and electoral fraud in all-postal voting regions. As we have made clear—particularly my noble friend Lord Greaves—this is potentially a very serious problem indeed. So far, the Electoral Commission has relied to a large extent on the evidence of complaints about fraud in the course of postal voting which have been submitted to the authorities. The Electoral Commission should be more proactive than that, and not only ask electors about their attitudes to the use of postal voting—which they have already done—but ask questions designed to extract their views and knowledge about the incidence of fraud. They also need to take into account any complaints and investigations by the police. It is essential that the Electoral Commission should do that.
	I recognise that the second subsection that is to be introduced by Amendment No.34 goes a long way to meeting the issues raised by Amendment No. 35. I hope that the Government expect and will request the commission to use a sampling by polling a representative group of electors as one of the methods by which they will aim to achieve that objective. I appreciate that they cannot give orders to the Electoral Commission as it is an independent public body.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I find merit in every amendment in the grouping.
	I suspect that the Minister will argue that Amendment No. 34 subsumes the other amendments that are being discussed. I see merit in it and welcome its provisions. There is a distinction to be drawn between the government amendment and Amendments Nos. 25 and 35. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was indicating, they impose a requirement on the Electoral Commission to be proactive. That was the point developed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in Committee when he moved an amendment to that effect. Today, he has brought forward an amendment that meets points that were raised in Committee, both by myself and by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.
	The thrust of Amendment No. 35 is very important in requiring the commission to be proactive, and I welcome the changes that have been made to it. I support them. If the matter is left too much to discretion, there is a danger that not enough work will be undertaken to find out if there has been any fraud or any undermining the secrecy of the ballot. In the context of these pilots that is extraordinarily important.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is an important issue that we have referred to a number of times, and have come back to several times during our consideration in Grand Committee.
	In Grand Committee I signalled that I was sympathetic to the view that as one moves from smaller-scale piloting to larger-scale—if there were the potential for all other tests to be met—then that issue is of considerable importance. I signalled my sympathy. It is not just a matter of looking at reports of malpractice, as that would, by definition, identify only what had been reported and would not identify malpractices that had taken place, but for whatever malign reason had not been reported because they were not known, or for any other reason.
	I said that it was important that the Electoral Commission should find an appropriate mechanism for identifying what was happening, as well as what was reported. The Bill does that. It provides that the Electoral Commission must assess the extent to which the pilots affected personation and other offences and malpractices. In order to fulfil its duties without us telling it how to go about its job, the commission will have to collect information from returning officers, local authorities and electors. It will have to talk to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, without in any way impinging on the responsibilities of the police to investigate malpractice under the Act.
	The issue of spot checks of ballot papers was raised. Such checks do not take place in traditional arrangements, for the important reason that the secrecy of the ballot must be maintained. It is right and proper that documents such as security statements may be inspected, but the ballot papers are sealed after an election and are inspected only on the order of a court, if the court has found that there is good reason to do so.
	As we said in Committee, the Electoral Commission can attend the verification of ballot papers, the counting of votes and proceedings on opening of postal ballot papers. Such provisions will remain in the pilots. In addition, the commission will report on specific issues of fraud, if it identifies causes to do so. The Bill obliges it to assess the extent to which postal voting affects the incidence of personation or other electoral offences. That is exactly what is being requested.
	The commission would not wish to be put in the position of looking at ballot papers after the close of the poll, and I do not think that local authorities would either. Currently, all such investigations are done under the supervision of the court. On a related issue, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked in Grand Committee whether the time for which electoral materials were kept would be extended to match the extension of time for prosecutions under Clause 7. He was right to do so. I can confirm that that is the case and will be provided for in the pilot order.
	Government Amendments Nos. 34 and 38 are a response to Amendment No. 35, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. They seek to address some of the concerns expressed during our discussion of Amendment No. 7. As part of a wider assessment of whether pilots increase fraud or other offences, the amendments will ensure that the commission assesses whether electors feel that the pilot was secure from fraud and offered proper security. In that sense, we are looking at the perception of fraud. The amendments specifically allow the commission some discretion about how it proceeds. In 2003, MORI was commissioned. The government amendments will allow that to happen again and allow electors to be asked about their experiences and perceptions of all-postal voting in the pilots.
	We tabled Amendment No. 34 after reflecting on what was said in Committee. It has been suggested that the commission should do more than simply consider complaints, and I have signalled my sympathy for that view. However, we should leave details of how it will go about it to the commission. The other part of the amendment is a response to Amendment No. 7. We do not accept the case for Amendment No. 7, but the first part of Amendment No. 34 is on a related issue, and I hope that that will be recognised. The amendment is intended to ensure that the Electoral Commission reports on the number of ballot envelopes received after the close of poll.
	Amendment No. 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would require the commission to report on the extent to which the manner in which the elections were conducted undermined the secrecy of the ballot. As my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting said in Committee, the commission is already required by Clause 4(6)(c) to report on how the pilots affected the incidence of electoral offences or malpractices. That covers all electoral malpractices and offences. If there are breaches of secrecy even though no offence is committed or if there is no breach of secrecy but there is a perception that postal voting makes it more difficult to vote in privacy, it will be picked up by the opinion polling provided for by Amendments Nos. 34 and 38.
	We think that we have struck the right balance by setting out a clear expectation that not only should the commission investigate reported malpractice or the perception of malpractice but it should also identify the reality of malpractice that might not have come to the surface. We would not want to go any further in telling the commission how to do its job.
	The commission will set up a call centre to receive complaints and will refer to administrators any allegations of fraud. The CPS will provide channels for reporting matters of concern. The list of provisions and options open to administrators is included in the policy paper that was referred to earlier.
	I hope that Amendments No. 25 will be withdrawn and the others not moved and that Amendments Nos. 34 and 38 will be supported.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, once again, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	Amendment No. 34 meets nearly all our concerns. Certainly, it has its attractions, as outlined by the Minister. I repeat that I am attracted to Amendment No. 35, which would give legal authority to market research, but the Government have moved a long way towards meeting our concerns, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 3, line 19, leave out "orders made under sections 1 and 2" and insert "pilot order"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, these amendments are consequential to the previous amendment that we debated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 31:
	Page 3, line 20, leave out from "which" to end of line 21 and insert "postal voting and provision made by the pilot order—"
	Page 3, line 22, leave out "elections" and insert "election"
	Page 3, line 23, leave out "elections" and insert "election"
	Page 3, line 26, leave out "elections" and insert "election"
	Page 3, line 28, leave out "elections" and insert "election"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 3, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of subsection (6)(a) the report must include a statement of the number of ballot papers which appear to the returning officer to have been delivered to him during the period of one week starting with the day after the date on which the poll closed.
	( ) For the purposes of subsection (6)(c) the Commission must ascertain by such means as it thinks appropriate and report on the views of electors as to whether postal voting and provision made by the pilot order—
	(a) provided sufficient safeguards against fraud;
	(b) provided appropriate protection for the secrecy of the ballot."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
	Page 4, line 2, leave out subsection (10).
	Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) The returning officer is the person who is described as such in the pilot order."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Revision of procedures in light of report]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 4, line 13, leave out from "by" to "for" and insert "a pilot order"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Personation: arrestable offence]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 43:
	Page 4, line 22, leave out "In relation to England and Wales,"
	Page 4, line 23, leave out "order under section 2" and insert "a pilot order"
	Page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
	Page 4, line 33, leave out "Subsections (1) and (2) do" and insert "Subsection (1) does"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Time limit for prosecution of offences]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 49:
	Page 4, line 38, leave out "order under section 2" and insert "a pilot order"
	Page 4, line 39, leave out "or (in Scotland) the sheriff"
	Page 4, line 40, leave out "or he (as the case may be)"
	Page 4, line 40, leave out "appropriate application" and insert "application by a constable or Crown Prosecutor"
	Page 5, line 3, leave out "or the sheriff (as the case may be)"
	Page 5, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Other elections, etc]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 5, line 16, leave out "An order under section 1" and insert "A pilot order"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Interpretation]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 55:
	Page 5, line 26, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	"( ) A pilot order is an order made under section (Piloting conduct at European and local elections).
	( ) Pilot region must be construed in accordance with section (Piloting conduct at European and local elections)(3)." Page 5, line 33, leave out "in relation to England,"
	Page 5, line 33, leave out "the Council of the Isles of Scilly"
	Page 5, line 36, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
	Page 5, line 40, at end insert—
	"( ) Postal voting must be construed in accordance with section (Piloting conduct at European and local elections)(4)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Orders]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Leave out Clause 10.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, Amendment No. 56 will withdraw Clause 10 in its entirety. Clause 10 gives details about the laying of the orders before both Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords will forgive me if I am wrong, but I have not noticed that commitment being maintained by any other amendment.
	I appreciate that we are now down to one order, but that order will contain the nuts and bolts of what is being proposed, and it seems inescapable that it must come for affirmative agreement by both Houses. The removal of Clause 10 will remove the possibility of an order coming to the House, or have I missed that somewhere?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness gave me a Gypsy's warning, if I can use that expression respectfully, that she wanted to make that point. I shall write to her and to the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, but my recollection is that our position is that there is no need for the resolution process that she talks about. The order will be such an administrative and technical one that we cannot see that it will require parliamentary scrutiny. That is part of the reason why we were keen to share the policy paper with the Front Benches. It has helped to inform scrutiny of the Bill, and it gives a clear signal of the direction in which we are moving.
	The hour is late, however, so I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, setting out our argument. It will not give her an opportunity to come back on it, I realise, but I recollect that we felt that the second order had always been of such a technical nature that we could see no issues that required parliamentary scrutiny. I am busking on this, but I do not think that the statutory instrument committee marked it as requiring such scrutiny. That is correct.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is it not correct that the Delegated Powers Committee took the view that, in that case, it would not insist on a form of parliamentary procedure for the pilots order, not because it was unimportant but because it was assumed at that point that it applied only to two regions of the United Kingdom and only for one election? That order was to cease to have effect after 10 June. I think there is a strong case for using, at any rate, the negative procedure. I am not sure I would go quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in saying that it would be appropriate here to have the affirmative procedure, but perhaps that could be considered at Third Reading.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is correct that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not think there was a need for parliamentary scrutiny, partly, I think, because the Bill is a one-off event. That is the normal situation. This Bill, despite the effort we have put into it, ceases to have effect after the June elections. It falls away, so what happens subsequently is open.
	Given that point, buttressed by what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said, we do not think there is a need for parliamentary scrutiny of these issues. Whether anything like that should happen in the future—whether there should be parliamentary scrutiny of future orders, were there to be further pilot orders—is an issue that will come back to the House. Therefore, I do not think we are at risk in not having parliamentary scrutiny on this.
	I hope that we have demonstrated by the way in which we have taken the Bill forward that there has been a wish to try to share as much as we can with Opposition Front Benches. I will give a commitment that we will seek to continue to do that. Although there will not be a parliamentary process, I will seek to ensure that we try to share information with Opposition Front Benches so that they are aware of what is happening on these issues as we move forward on the electoral pilot. It is not simply an issue of the confidence of Parliament about the Bill; it is also important that political parties understand what is happening on the implementation of the pilots. Therefore, I give that commitment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have a vague recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, waving a pile of papers at us in Committee and asking whether we really wanted to have all this for all the pilot areas. I am bound to say now that I do not, but an example of what the pilot order will look like would be extremely helpful.
	In order for us to be able to make any progress on that if we think something in it has not been adequately dealt with, it would, at the very least, be sensible to suggest that at Third Reading we move an amendment to put it in for a negative order. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says, that gives us a chance then to ask for the House to see it if there are omissions or additions about which we have concerns.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Extent]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 6, line 29, after "to" insert "Scotland or"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	The Schedule [Other elections, etc]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 7, line 7, leave out from third "a" to "must" in line 8 and insert "pilot region"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I remind your Lordships that if Amendment No. 59 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 60 or 61 because of pre-emption.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Page 7, line 11, leave out from "2004" to end of line 13.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I will seek to keep this relatively succinct. Included in the schedule to the Bill is a provision preventing Westminster by-elections as well as other elections, by-elections and referendums taking place within a window of time around the European parliamentary election in pilot regions. The Bill states that no Westminster by-election is to take place either on the same day as the European parliamentary elections or at any time within three weeks before or after that date. The intention is that undue complexity and confusion is avoided for electoral administrators and the electorate.
	The provision was raised as a concern by the Select Committee on the Constitution in its consideration of the Bill. It stated that it was aware of no direct precedent for the imposition of such restriction which would cause the electorate in the affected constituency to be without a representative in Parliament for longer than would otherwise be the case. This may be perceived as setting a precedent, with constitutional implications.
	The Government tabled an identical amendment to Amendment No. 59 in Committee, but we could not reach unanimity, so it was withdrawn. This amendment would keep the current exclusion, but amend it, so that the excluded period is reduced to just the date of the European parliamentary election. We felt that that took on board the Constitution Committee's clear advice in this respect. The amendment, therefore, still prevents the by-election on the same day as the European parliamentary election and since elections are conventionally held on a Thursday, it would actually prevent by-elections during the entire week surrounding the European election. I hope that that is some, if not sufficient, comfort for the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
	The noble Lord argued forcefully in Committee that a longer period was necessary; Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 name a period of two weeks either side. I have set out why we think it is wise to keep the absolute prohibition at a minimum. However, at least for parliamentary by-elections, the relevant party Whip has the power, within limits, to determine when the election is called. One would expect all parties, without there being a statutory prohibition, apart from one day, to be aware of the issues around the election in June. I say no more than that, but what we have said gives a window that is wider than one day. No doubt any Chief Whip of a party so affected would think long and hard about whether it was wise to test the comprehension of electoral administrators and the electorate by bringing them too proximate together.
	I hope we have responded strongly and clearly to what the Select Committee on the Constitution said, while still making a nod in the direction of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I beg to move.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, I shall also be very succinct, as I was rather less so in Committee. The Minister has been kind enough to reply to various points I made then. He has picked up the point that the timing of the parliamentary by-election lies, by convention, with the Chief Whip of the party whose member has died or resigned. I hope the noble Lord will take note of some of the points I made in Committee about whether a by-election should arise during that time.
	I still foresee a degree of chaos in overlapping between a parliamentary by-election and a pilot with all-postal voting. The postal voting regulations will be so different between the two elections that people who might want to vote by post in a parliamentary by-election a week or two before or after the pilots for the European and local elections may be rather confused. I fear they may think they will be sent a postal vote automatically. I think it would be much more satisfactory to have a two-week gap on either side, rather than one week. It is only by convention that our elections are held on a Thursday—elections are occasionally held on a Wednesday or Friday.
	I note the Minister's remark that these points should be considered by Chief Whips at the appropriate time. At least we will not have the complete confusion of two elections under two systems on the same day.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I rise to add my support, because I attached my name to government Amendment No. 59, and I welcome the fact that the Government have brought it forward. I support fully what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said.
	As the noble Lord said, the Constitution Committee, in its report on the Bill, drew attention to this provision. The committee did not offer a judgment on the provision. The purpose of the report was to call it to the attention of the House because it raised an important issue of principle affecting a principal part of the constitution. We must be extremely wary about any provision that has the effect of limiting the rights of electors. There is the danger of a range of disparate provisions being introduced over time that have the effect of limiting the capacity of electors to choose a representative. I raised that matter recently in a different context—that of the prohibition of the dual mandate for members of the European Parliament, which constitutes a limitation on the freedom of choice of electors. Any provision that affects the rights of electors must be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny and it must prove not simply desirable or convenient but essential. The case has to be compelling.
	I do not think that the case for banning parliamentary by-elections for a number of weeks either side of the June elections is compelling. Holding a parliamentary by-election within a week or so of the elections held by postal ballot may prove, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, indicated, an administrative nightmare. It may induce voter fatigue. I appreciate that. That recognition was at the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said in Committee. However, in practice, as is generally recognised—and the Minister has referred to it—the situation is not likely to arise. It would not be the end of the world were it to happen, but the chances of a seat becoming vacant between now and June—in a seat falling within the territory of the European Parliamentary constituencies chosen for postal elections— and the party holding the seat opting for a Thursday just before or after the June elections are slim to say the least, as the Minister said.
	However, I would rather run the risk of it happening than set a legislative precedent. I appreciate the point made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that there are problems with the existing provisions for holding by-elections. That, though, is an argument for addressing those problems. It is not an argument for retaining this particular provision.
	The Government are absolutely right to move this amendment. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, put it forward in Grand Committee and I am very pleased that the Government are persisting with it today. It has my full support.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 67:
	Page 7, line 15, leave out paragraph 2.
	Page 7, line 33, leave out from "a" to end of line 34 and insert "pilot region"
	Page 8, line 10, leave out "an order under this Act" and insert "a pilot order"
	Page 8, line 19, leave out from "a" to end of line 20 and insert "pilot region"
	Page 8, line 35, leave out paragraph 5.
	Page 8, line 43, leave out "an order under section 2" and insert "a pilot order"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, disputes at work are expensive, stressful and disruptive for all parties involved. But everyone agrees that early, constructive discussion can produce solutions before problems escalate and working relationships break down. With that in mind, the Government introduced, in the Employment Act 2002, new measures to improve the handling of individual disciplinary and grievance issues in the workplace. The main aim of those provisions can be simply put. It is to encourage employers and employees to resolve disputes through workplace dialogue, rather than through litigation.
	The new procedures are minimum standards. We are, of course, aware that many employers already operate more comprehensive procedures, and it is not our intention to undermine such existing good practice—far from it. The Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service has for many years offered advice and guidance on this matter, in particular through its code of practice on discipline and grievance issues, and that will continue to be of great importance. It is widely respected and followed, but not by all employers. At present, around 800,000 firms have either inadequate procedures in place or no procedures at all, which means up to 7.2 million employees have no clear right to discuss any grievances in the workplace.
	Research undertaken by the DTI in 1998 showed that, in more than a third of cases that went to an employment tribunal there had been absolutely no prior discussion of the dispute between the claimant and his or her manager. That is why the introduction of minimum standards is warranted. Employment tribunals should not be the first resort for resolving workplace problems. They should be the last resort, when attempts by the parties to resolve a problem together in the workplace have failed. This House debated the substance of the new procedures, and the principles underlying them, at considerable length during the passage of what is now the 2002 Act, and the Government are convinced that the principles are sound. The regulations before the House today set out the detail of when and how the procedures established in the Act should apply, and it is to those details that I now turn.
	The regulations establish that the standard, three step dismissal and disciplinary procedure should be used when an employer contemplates dismissing or taking relevant disciplinary action against an employee. Relevant disciplinary action is defined as action, short of dismissal, which the employer says is based wholly or mainly on the employee's conduct or capability. Suspension on full pay and the giving of warnings—both oral and written—will not count as relevant disciplinary action for these purposes. That is because they are part and parcel of existing workplace procedures to address disciplinary and grievance issues, not the causes of such issues, and can rarely give rise to employment tribunal cases in themselves.
	The circumstances in which the modified, two step, dismissal procedure will apply are very narrowly defined. They represent a small subset of gross misconduct dismissals. It is almost always unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee instantly, without first going through some form of procedure or carrying out some form of investigation, even in a case of apparently obvious gross misconduct. That will remain the position. However, tribunals have occasionally found such dismissals to be fair, when they have concluded that prior investigation could not have affected the decision to dismiss. Regulation 3(2) will avoid the new procedures cutting across that in existing case law. However, even in that very small subset of gross misconduct dismissals, the employer will in future have to go through the modified dismissal procedure after the event—otherwise, the dismissal will be automatically unfair, and the employee will receive an enhanced award of compensation. This therefore represents a tightening of the law in relation to gross misconduct dismissals, not a relaxation of it as some might have feared.
	The Government recognise that, in certain exceptional circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the parties to have to follow the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures. In those circumstances, set out in Regulation 4, the procedures will not apply. I will not go through them one by one, but, in summary, they cover cases when there already exists legal provision for collective dialogue about a particular issue; when the dispute or issue involved is a collective rather than individual one; or when, exceptionally, workplace dialogue may serve no useful purpose.
	There are also certain circumstances, specified at Regulation 5, in which the parties will be treated as having complied with the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures, even if they have not. These are; first, trade union dismissal cases where the employee presents an interim relief application to an employment tribunal, within the very tight time limit for doing so, before the appeal stage of the applicable statutory procedure has been completed; and, secondly, where there exists a collectively agreed procedure for consideration of dismissal appeals at a level above that of the individual employer, and the employee has availed himself or herself of that procedure.
	I turn now to the statutory grievance procedures. The standard three step grievance procedure will generally apply whenever an employee has a grievance about any action by the employer that could form the basis of a tribunal claim under a jurisdiction listed in Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 to the 2002 Act. Failure to initiate the procedure will normally mean that the employee is barred from making such a claim. The modified two step grievance procedure will be reserved for a very limited set of circumstances, when the employee's employment has ended and the parties mutually agree that it should be followed, in preference to the standard procedure, in relation to a particular grievance.
	There are, again, a number of exceptional circumstances in which the parties will be treated as having complied with the applicable statutory grievance procedure, even if they have not. These are set out at Regulations 7 to 10. Regulation 7 deals with what have been referred to as "overlapping" disputes. On occasion, separate disputes can become intertwined. The guiding principle we have followed is to avoid the parties having to go through unnecessary multiple procedures, or iterations of procedures, in relation to "overlapping" disputes. It may be helpful if I go into this in some depth, as it is a key feature of the regulations.
	When the action taken by the employer is dismissal—leaving aside constructive dismissal—the onus will be on the employer to initiate workplace dialogue under the applicable dismissal and disciplinary procedure. The employee will not, in any circumstances, have to initiate separate discussion under a statutory grievance procedure, before he or she can complain about that dismissal to an employment tribunal. Employers should know that it is incumbent upon them to have a fair reason for dismissal, untainted by any unlawful discrimination, if they contemplate such a serious step. Thus only one statutory procedure will apply where the disputed action is dismissal.
	If the employer takes action short of dismissal against the employee for reasons other than the employee's conduct or capability, then the employer will not need to follow any dismissal or disciplinary procedure. Such action would not normally be recognised as disciplinary action. The employee will instead have to initiate dialogue under the applicable grievance procedure, if he or she wishes to dispute the action and it could form the substance of an employment tribunal claim. Again, only one statutory procedure will apply.
	If the employer takes action short of dismissal against the employee and asserts that it is on the basis of the employee's conduct or capability, the applicable dismissal and disciplinary procedure will have to be followed, as I have previously described. The grievance procedures will not normally apply in such cases. If, however, the employee either considers that the action is unlawfully discriminatory or disputes that it is on grounds of conduct or capability, we believe that it is right, and in line with the principles underlying this legislation, that the employer should be entitled to prior notice of that before the employee can make it the basis of an employment tribunal claim. Otherwise, the issue might not be aired and there might be no opportunity to resolve it through workplace dialogue.
	In such circumstances, therefore, the employee will be required to put the grievance in writing to the employer. Provided that is done before the appeal meeting under the disciplinary and grievance procedure, it will be sufficient, as the matter can then be discussed at that meeting. If that meeting has already taken place, however, the full grievance procedure will have to be gone through in relation to the grievance. That is the only circumstance in which two separate statutory procedures will have to be followed, arising out of the same matter.
	Regulation 8 allows for the standard grievance procedure not to be completed but to be treated as such in certain circumstances when the employment has ended and the employee has put the grievance in writing to the employer, but it has since become not reasonably practicable for either the employee or the employer to attend a meeting.
	Regulation 9 provides for the applicable grievance procedure not to be completed, but to be treated as such, if the substance of the grievance has been raised collectively—that is, by a trade union official or other employee representative acting on behalf of two or more employees. Furthermore, under Regulation 10, if a collectively agreed industry-level grievance procedure exists, there will be no requirement to go through the statutory procedures.
	Regulation 11 provides for a number of general circumstances in which the procedures—in this instance, both the dismissal and disciplinary procedures and the grievance procedures—will either not apply at all or, when they have already been commenced, will be treated as having been completed. These are circumstances in which one of the parties reasonably believes that following the procedures would give rise to bullying, violence, harassment and other intimidation. Regulation 11 also covers cases in which it is not practicable for a party to commence a procedure or take a subsequent step within a reasonable period. That might arise, for instance, when one of the parties suffers a long-term illness or is out of the country for a prolonged time.
	Regulation 12 makes clear which party is to be held at fault, and in what circumstances, when a statutory procedure is not completed. Regulation 13 makes allowance for the situation in which a meeting under one of the procedures is arranged, but it subsequently becomes not reasonably practicable for one or other of the parties—or the employee's companion, if the right to be accompanied applies—to attend. The employer will be obliged to rearrange a meeting in such circumstances, but only once. In order to allow time for the parties to go through the statutory procedures, without them being cut short by the employee making a tribunal claim simply in order to avoid being out of time, the normal time limits for making tribunal claims are to be extended by three months in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are specified in Regulation 15.
	The remainder of the regulations deal with relatively minor and technical matters, and I will not go into them in detail. The regulations will apply to every employer in Great Britain. They are designed to be operable in all different types of organisation, from the largest to the smallest. Particular thought has been given to the special circumstances of small businesses. We know that the smallest firms are least likely to use proper procedures already.
	In preparing the regulations, the DTI has carried out full and extensive public consultation. That process began with some six months of informal pre-consultation, including consultation with key organisations that represent employees and employers. A four-month formal public consultation took place between July and October 2003 on draft regulations. Before, during and after that consultation, discussions took place with an advisory group of 19 interested stakeholders established specifically for the purpose. There were also numerous bilateral discussions with stakeholders. In addition, a "roadshow" seminar event was held in various locations around the country to promote engagement in the consultation. Some focus groups were also held with representatives of small firms and others.
	That was one of the most thorough and far-reaching consultations to have been conducted by the DTI, and we are satisfied that, having taken account of the many comments and representations received, we have here a set of regulations that will operate effectively. But that is only part of the picture. We recognise that employers and employees need to be aware of the new rights and responsibilities placed upon them. To ensure that they are, over the coming months, the DTI, along with ACAS, will carry out a well targeted publicity campaign aimed at all businesses and their employees, and in particular those in the small business sector.
	A critical element of the campaign will be the provision of user-friendly guidance both for employers and employees. To allow time for that, the Government has laid these regulations before Parliament well before their intended coming into effect date of 1 October 2004. Also coming into effect on that date, to form a coherent package of measures, will be the revised rules of procedure for employment tribunals, revised Employment Appeal Tribunal rules, and a revised ACAS code. Together, that package of measures will, we believe, bring about the biggest improvement in the handling of workplace disputes in decades. I commend the regulations to the House, and beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of very complex regulations and for his department's very detailed Explanatory Memorandum. The regulations that we are considering today cover 10 pages, while the Explanatory Memorandum issued by the DTI is 30 pages long. No wonder the DTI, in its paper entitled Dispute Resolution Regulations: Government Response to Public Consultation admitted that they were "not simple, but necessary".
	Indeed, that sentiment has been echoed by a senior partner in a leading firm of solicitors specialising in labour relations. She asked whether they were,
	"now too complex to fulfil their original purpose".
	She went on to comment:
	"Only time will tell whether they will have any effect on reducing"—
	applications to tribunals. A specialist partner in another firm wrote that,
	"employers would find the procedures very difficult to negotiate".
	In the Explanatory Memorandum to which I have just referred, the Government report on the quantified and unquantified costs and benefits. They estimate the one-off implementation costs at between £37 million and £73 million. That gap of £36 million, just 100 per cent up on the lowest part of the range, is wide enough to suggest that they were not too sure and simply came up with a figure.
	The annual recurring costs of using the statutory procedures are estimated by the department as being between £35 million and £48 million, without taking into account the time cost of what is described as a "companion" to accompany a claimant.
	The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations certified in the Explanatory Memorandum that he was satisfied that the benefits justified the costs. The claimed benefits range from "better employment relations" and "lower recruitment costs" on the employers' side to allegedly "improved employment prospects" and "reduced stress" on the employees' side. Let us hope that that is the effect of them.
	Ephemeral as the claimed benefits are, the Government claim that they will range from £697 to £922 million a year over the first 10 years. Included in that figure is the number of tribunal applications, which they put at between 74,000 and 75,000 a year—more than 1,400 a week. They arrive at those figures—and I very much hope that your Lordships will be able to follow this—by, in square brackets, multiplying 9.64 per cent by 76 per cent and then by 900,000, then adding 18.06 per cent multiplied by 5 per cent and again by 900,000. I invite those of your Lordships who are better at algebra than I am to review those footnotes on pages 22 and 23 of the Explanatory Memorandum. However, I am sure that someone was scraping the bottom of the barrel in dredging up those figures, because I found them very difficult to follow.
	It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that, on the other hand, the costs estimated by the Government are more or less 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the benefits. I shall not comment any more on the figures relating to costs and benefits, except to invite your Lordships to draw on your own experience as to whether the Government's estimates of costs may be generally far too low. Their estimate of benefits may verge on the over-optimistic—but I hope that I am not right.
	A major defect in the Employment Act 2000 was the refusal of the Government to accept an amendment that I proposed that an application to an employment tribunal should be accompanied by a deposit against possible costs. In one stroke, this would have deterred the launching of frivolous claims without merit or speculative claims in which the employee hopes that the employer will pay out rather than fight.
	The Government's own consultation paper admits that the cost to employers of each claim is around £2,000—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is smiling as he recalls the debates we had upstairs in Committee. Many employers put the figure considerably higher and that is without taking into account the distraction to management in having to find time to deal with the claim.
	Then there is the fact, which is admitted on all sides, including by the Government, that the procedures in these regulations are extremely complex. They contain a number of traps which will lay the unwary employer open to severe penalties by an arbitrary increase in any compensation that the tribunal thinks fit to award of between 10 and 50 per cent. Conversely, an employee would possibly lose the same percentage of compensation for failure to comply with disciplinary or grievance procedures. Problems of precise compliance with the very detailed timetables and procedures will undoubtedly fall heaviest on small businesses whose needs are often ignored.
	I quote what the CBI said in its brief on these regulations:
	"The aim should not be to require all employers to achieve the highest 'best practice' for handling disputes which exist in the more advanced firms. Such standards will not be achievable for all companies, particularly those with minimum resources".
	The regulations do not distinguish between the obligations they impose on a company in the FTSE 100 on the one hand and the corner shop where the employer and the employee work side by side. Employees who do not have the benefit of trade union representation will be disadvantaged in the same way. I can only hope that when deciding whether to inflict penalties for procedural failures on small employers and on unrepresented employees the tribunals will be merciful.
	The Government have made an optimistic forecast that their proposals will cut applications by a quarter. This forecast is presumably arrived at by the convoluted calculation that I mentioned to your Lordships a little while ago. Significant costs will undoubtedly fall on small employers. This is acknowledged in the regulatory assessment made in connection with the Employment Act.
	This Government have extended employment rights to whole new categories of workers, have shortened qualifying periods before cases can be taken to employment tribunals and have increased the ceiling on compensation payments. At the same time, the newspapers frequently report tribunal decisions that can only be described as bizarre and awards of compensation that are out of all relationship to what is awarded, for example, by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to persons who have suffered serious physical traumas as distinct from merely injured feelings.
	Therefore, it is right that employees will be required to use internal grievance to resolve disputes in the workplace before going to the tribunal. The requirements of the new regulations have been significantly watered down from what the unions and Government Back-Benchers in both Houses were advocating when the Bill was first published and found its way through Parliament. We welcome the fact that in these regulations the Government have decided not to implement Section 30 of the Act, which would have required employers—large, medium and small—to make the new procedures part of the specific contractual terms.
	I shall take a moment or two to quote what the CBI said on that point:
	"By deciding not to implement Section 30 ensures that businesses have flexibility to change elements of their procedures, for example to keep pace with changes in the business structure, without having to issue contracts of employment every time, a process which would be a huge bureaucratic burden . . . and it prevents employees circumventing the one-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims by instead claiming 'breach of contract' for failure to follow one of these procedures. This would result in an increase in the number of employment tribunal claims, the exact opposite of the Government's intention".
	The implication that the laws of the United Kingdom apply to all contracts should be sufficient for anyone. We are also pleased to note that the definition of "relevant disciplinary action" excludes warnings and suspensions on full pay. Otherwise we would find employers dragged through this complicated procedure merely for a severe reprimand on the shop floor or in the office.
	The Government have also sensibly, in our opinion, excluded, in Regulation 3, dismissals where collective consultation is already required by redundancy regulations.
	Despite the complexity of the regulations, which the Government admit, and the cost to business, which perhaps they do not, in the interests of giving effect to the Employment Act, we shall not oppose the regulations. Indeed, we believe that any measures that help to resolve more disputes in the workplace without the need to go to litigation are truly to be welcomed.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving a clear exposition of the background to these regulations. Listening to the noble Baroness, and seeing the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in his place—welcomed, I am sure, by all of us—brought an awful sense of deja vu about the endless discussions we had on the Bill itself.
	Before I make one or two comments, I wish to remind the Minister that, as he will remember, we on these Benches were fundamentally in support of the Government's proposals, which was not the case for the Conservative Opposition and not always the case for the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who was normally coming from a slightly different perspective from that of the noble Baroness.
	Having put in that slight admonition, on this occasion I agree with a good deal of what the noble Baroness has said, particularly with regard to the costs. Having studied the numbers in the regulatory assessment in some detail, I have doubts. It may significantly underestimate the costs to employers and significantly overestimate the savings to the taxpayer. As an aside, when we debated a number of these issues in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, endeavoured to persuade us, and I listened with interest, that the major motivation for the Government with regard to this legislation was to reduce the number of cases going to tribunals and to bring a saving to the taxpayer by fewer tribunal claims. I have no knowledge whether that was the Government's objective; in debate, the Minister denied that it was. I share the noble Baroness's scepticism. I do not think that they will succeed. For reasons that the noble Baroness has indicated, I suspect that the figures on savings from fewer tribunal claims, given in Table 2, on page 19 of the regulatory assessment, are significantly overstated.
	The most fundamental reason is set out in paragraph 50 on page 15 of the regulatory assessment—which the Minister has touched on—regarding the position of small businesses. A policy decision has been taken, which I support, that these regulations and the procedures they set out should apply to every company, from the Shell oil company down to the corner shop. I think that that is absolutely right. But I also think there is a danger that the Government will underestimate the impact that it will have on the myriad small businesses which, as indicated in paragraph 50, do not have a specialised personnel function. The type of situation covered by the regulations will often arise only when something peculiar arises in their business such as—the example given in paragraph 50—parental leave following an adoption.
	Paragraph 51 states that the DTI,
	"recognises the need for user-friendly guidance and standard forms to reduce the implementation costs, particularly for small firms".
	I think the Government will find that although that is an easy sentence to write, it will be a very difficult sentence to implement. Although we listened with interest to the Minister's very clear exposition of the regulations' meaning and implications, I suspect that it will be very difficult and defy even the best brains in the DTI to reduce them to a form that is easily understandable by every small business.
	That is going to be a significant challenge for the department. This is really the first time that anything like this has been attempted in this country. I applaud the intent to do so because there is no reason why an employee in a small business should be treated any differently in terms of employment rights from an employee of the Shell oil company. However, it will be a serious challenge to explain business obligations and employee rights to the corner shop owner—I do not know why we are picking on the corner shop owner—or to any other very small business in a way which achieves the effect that the Government seek.
	It may be difficult for the Minister to give a definitive answer to my final question. However, it would be useful if we could know what were the especially difficult areas on which there was significant disagreement among consultees in the consultation exercise. I absolutely accept that these regulations result form an extensive consultation exercise with employers' organisations, representatives of small business and so on. It would be helpful if the Government could indicate the difficult areas. On which issues was there no real agreement among consultees? The Government had to take key decisions on matters such as Section 30, to which the noble Baroness referred. Clearly the consultation exercise led the Government to decide that they were not going to implement Section 30. It would be useful if the Minister could indicate those areas. I am perfectly happy for him to write. It would help if we could have the background to these areas of controversy by the time we reach the implementation phase of the regulations.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I rise to welcome the regulations and to ask my noble friend the Minister three questions. I preface them by acknowledging that the regulations contain many directions of approach to the complexity and difficulty which arose on the way in which the Bill was drafted, by including improvements that go beyond some of the suggested answers to the difficulties made by Ministers in the rather long Grand Committee and on Report. They are certainly far better than any of the suggestions made by the official Opposition whose industrial relations policy, as we have heard again this evening, goes back to demands to keep workers away from employment tribunals by imposing deposits. That arises not from what they said on the Bill a year or two back, but from their demands of 1983. They do not make much progress, and I congratulate the Government on not listening to such industrial relations chatter.
	I also congratulate the Government on insisting that the procedure demanded of employers and employees should apply across the board. They have not given way to pressure from some quarters to allow small employers to continue to be bad employers, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall.
	My first of three questions relates to the figures in Annex A on pages 21–23. My question comes not from a failure to understand the algebra, as has been suggested, but it is about the figures themselves in their estimate of the number of employment tribunal applications.
	The 2002 Act was predicated on the basis that there had been, and continued to be a dramatic rise in the number of tribunal applications. By the year before, the figure had reached 130,000. My noble friends and I tried to convince the Government that that year was a rather unusual one. It might be thought that there was some merit in that argument as, in the two subsequent years after the 130,000 figure, the number of tribunal applications fell by 25 per cent each year. By the time we reached 2003, employment tribunal applications were down to 98,600.
	In that event, is the Minister entirely happy with the calculation that there will be roughly 110,000 employment tribunal applications per year, including 10,000 from new jurisdictions? That is based on the same research that the Government disclosed to us only two days before the Bill was debated on Report, and which they relied on before. Is it the case that the calculations of the number of tribunal applications that will be saved, which they say will be 35,000 to 36,000, is based on a very good assessment of the research, especially as they appear to quote the survey on employment tribunal applications of 1998 and onwards, when everyone in their position said that the number of tribunal applications was rising and would rise?
	Leaving aside new jurisdictions, it has been shown that apart from the Act, which is not in force, the number of tribunal applications has fallen. How far have the Government taken account of that fact and the reasons for the fall? I shall not try to explain that now, but plenty of explanation in the debates in Committee and on Report of the Bill appear to have been justified.
	My second point is to express surprise that Government statements and explanatory notes omit all reference to a series of issues of which the most important is Section 30 of the Act. The Bill proposed by the deliberate choice of the Government, which we asked about again and again, to make disciplinary and grievance procedures implied terms of every contract of employment in the land. The debate on the Bill took place on that desire—to make the procedures part of the employment contract.
	Yet the Government suddenly leapt backwards into the arms of the CBI when they saw the response to their consultative document, and they refused to bring Section 30 into effect at all. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, perhaps was not wholly fair to the Government because they published in response to the consultation the reasons why they took their sudden new view.
	I shall quote only a few words of paragraphs 121 to 123 of the response document in which the Government say that the,
	"CBI was concerned that making the procedures an implied term would open the door for a large number of breach of contract claims".
	We have heard the same argument from the official Opposition. The Government also say:
	"The Employment Lawyers Association commented that implementing the implied right would give rise to a number of complex legal issues".
	We had much debate during the passage of the Bill on the complex legal issues that might arise, but the Government never told us that they would not implement Section 30.
	The view of the CBI was,
	"strongly opposed by the TUC and individual unions".
	That is all we are told in terms of the arguments. The Government's conclusion stated:
	"The Government does not intend to commence section 30 of the Employment Act 2002 at this time".
	They go on to say that,
	"the Government believes it would be sensible to see how . . . [the regulations] operate in practice".
	But Section 30 will not operate in practice. Section 30 gave workers the right to say, "These procedures are obligatory and if you, the employer, do not implement them, you are in breach of contract". It gave the employer the right to say to employees, "If you do not implement the procedures, you are in breach of contract". The mere fact that it might give workers a right to sue in the tribunals as well as in the ordinary courts is no reason for completely emasculating and destroying those rights. At the very most the logic of the argument is that those rights should not exist in the tribunals where the one-year period applies. The one-year period does not apply to breach of contract actions in the courts. Why have the Government suddenly destroyed the rights of workers to enforce the obligation to have the procedures properly observed?
	Complex legal issues arise in all parts of the Bill. The only argument mentioned was that of the CBI, which was strongly opposed by the TUC. The Government have given no extra reason at all for not implementing Section 30. My second question is: do they have some new unstated and unknown mysterious reason whose objective is simply to deny the right of workers to enforce the employers' obligations in the courts?
	My third question is a very simple one: what is the meaning of Regulation 3, especially paragraph (2) of Regulation 3? Regulation 3(2) deals with the modified dismissal procedure. That is important for a worker. My noble friend the Minister said—I think that I am right in summarising his words as follows—that the modified procedure, which is scarcely a procedure at all, would apply where the employer could dismiss for misconduct. But with respect to him, Regulation 3 is a little more difficult than that and raises all sorts of issues which, like so many of the other problems, we were told would be clarified in the regulations when we raised them as problems during the passage of the Bill.
	For example, to take one of the many difficulties, the employer is permitted to use the modified procedure when,
	"the dismissal occurred at the time the employer became aware of the conduct or immediately thereafter".
	We were told almost precisely that during debates on the Bill. The Government then said, "Oh, that will all be clarified in the regulations", like so many other issues. One could make a list of them, but I refer to this one because it is perhaps the most important to the workers concerned; namely, whether they can simply be shoved out on the spot with no procedure—the modified procedure is scarcely worth anything—when,
	"the dismissal occurred at the time the employer became aware of the conduct or immediately thereafter".
	We do not have greater clarification than we had in the Bill; we do not have greater clarification than we had in the debates.
	I give that one example, but in a more general sense is not Regulation 3(2) so uncertain in its terms that it will be very difficult for a worker to challenge the use of the modified procedure by the employer? It is no good saying, "Oh well, that can all go to the tribunal" because what the worker wants to know is whether he can challenge the use of an immediate dismissal or a summary dismissal at which he loses his job, which has not merely employment but also social security implications and results. If my noble friend could say a word about such problems, not forgetting that I have paid tribute to some of the improvements that one finds in the regulations, my welcome for the regulations would be even greater than it is.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have listened with interest to all the points that have been made and I am grateful for them. I shall endeavour to respond to as many of them as I can. However, I make the point that these regulations offer a positive way of improving dispute resolution in our workforces. We can all agree that it makes sense to discuss problems at an early stage before they escalate out of control.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the complexity of the regulations. Of course, they will apply to all workplaces and to all situations that arise in workplaces. Inevitably, employment disputes can be highly complicated and dealing with them appropriately necessarily requires some complexity. However, the regulations were drafted with input and support from a wide range of stakeholders and the Government have tested them during a lengthy period of consultation to ensure that they meet the needs of a full spectrum of workplaces and employment disputes.
	The noble Baroness raised the issue of deposits on costs. A better way to deal with the problem is to get people to talk, rather than to have a system of deposits. In 2001 we consulted on whether tribunals should charge users, and the strong response from the consultees was that charging would deter claims from applicants. The Government accept that position. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, in this case it is not our objective simply to reduce tribunal work. On the contrary, we want to improve industrial relations. We believe that an employment relations system is better if people talk early on. It is better for the employer in terms of keeping experienced workers if problems can be sorted out; it is also better for the employee in terms of keeping a job if problems can be sorted out.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made the point that the regulations do not distinguish between small companies and large companies. The whole point of the regulations is that we have set a minimum standard, and we have applied them so that they bring in a large number of employees who are not currently protected by adequate dispute resolution procedures in their workplaces. We accept, right from the start, that many companies will quite rightly have more complex and more detailed arrangements. We have not applied those arrangements to all businesses because we believe that that would not be possible or right for small business. I believe that is the right way to approach the matter.
	The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, challenged the DTI to produce simple material; it is a challenge that we accept and we shall seek to do that. He also asked what were the stakeholder responses to the regulations consultation process. As always, it uncovered a wide range of opinion from key stakeholders. This is an important and challenging area of law. Employer and employee organisations often take very different viewpoints. We have tried to take those on board; for example, the CBI has broadly supported the aim behind employment dispute resolution reforms; it felt that the procedure was generally sensible; it thought that the exemptions were appropriate; and said that the changes were timely and broadly acceptable. The TUC welcomed the extension to time limits for grievance cases, as one would expect, and approved of the ability to resolve collective grievances. Small businesses councils generally endorsed the Government's approach in that area. The two major issues, particularly for the TUC, were, first, that we were not implementing the implied contractual right and, secondly, the definition of disciplinary action.
	I turn to the three questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I thank him for his thanks—they are much appreciated in the light of all the comments he made during the 40 hours of debate. He raised the interesting question of the movement of employment tribunal caseload figures. We always accepted that the figures were particularly high in 2000 and 2001 because of the raised level of cases caused by new European part-time pension rules. The noble Lord was right to say that in 2001–02 the figure went from 130,000 to 112,000, and then down again in 2002–03 to 98,000. But the latest figures look likely to be around 113,000 in 2003–04, so they appear to be increasing again. The main reason that we were concerned was not the peak year of 130,000 cases, but that between 1990 and 2003 the caseload roughly trebled. I return to the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. This is not simply about keeping down tribunal costs but about improving the employment relations system.
	The second question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, related to the implied contractual right and why we were not bringing that in. I shall try to make the Government's position clear. These statutory procedures will be a major change for many workplaces. So that their impact is controlled the Government do not at this time intend to commence the provision contained in the Employment Act 2002, which would make the statutory dispute resolution procedures an implied contractual term for all employees. There are those people, of whom I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is one, who fear that not commencing that provision will emasculate the procedures because there will be no sanction if the employers do not follow the dispute resolution process. Of course that is not the case.
	If employers do not follow the procedures and the dispute subsequently escalates to employment tribunal proceedings, they will suffer the adverse consequences provided for in the 2002 Act. In dismissal cases they will face a finding of unfair dismissal. In all cases, if a failure to start or complete a statutory procedure was the employer's fault the tribunal will increase any award by up to 50 per cent if it finds in the employee's favour. It is important to recognise that these statutory procedures will be a major change for the 800,000 or more firms that have inadequate or non-existent procedures in place at the moment. Because of the burden of applying new operating procedures, the Government's view is that it is best to proceed in stages, starting with these regulations, which apply procedures to disputes that involve employment rights.
	I should make clear that our approach is not set in stone. The Government are committed after two years to a review of how the procedures operate in practice. If there is evidence to suggest that the procedures have not been universally adopted, then it would be appropriate to consider introducing the implied term, so that the employees can make breach of contract claims if their employer fails to follow the procedures. The decision to proceed in such a way was strongly endorsed by a majority of the respondents during consultations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also had concerns about using the modified dismissal procedure. But, as I explained in my opening remarks, the modified dismissal procedure will apply only in a limited subset of gross misconduct dismissals. Extensive feedback during consultation has helped us to tighten up the drafting of the provision to ensure that we do not create a loophole to allow unscrupulous employers to sack instantaneously. Of course, for the most severe gross misconduct cases, it is surely right that employers retain the right to sack instantly, especially as tribunals can find that to be fair. In those cases, the shortened procedure must be followed after dismissal.
	In conclusion, the draft regulations laid before the House today set out a sensible, and I believe valid, way of encouraging dialogue in workplace disputes. They are based on rational, reasonable principles. Employers and employees should discuss problems before acting hastily. I believe that this is an even-handed package which balances rights with responsibilities for both employers and employees. The regulations are practical and workable for even the smallest employers and, above all, they will ensure that up to 7.2 million employees are covered by basic dispute resolution procedures.
	I should also say that the regulations have been tested in a very thorough consultation exercise supported by extensive discussions with key stakeholders and 16 weeks of public consultations. Implementation will be supported by an extensive guidance and awareness campaign. We are working with ACAS, the TUC, the CBI, small firm representatives and citizens advice bureaux to ensure that they meet the needs of all end-users.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Sunday Trading) Order 2004

Lord Triesman: rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 22 January be approved [6th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This regulatory reform order is brought forward under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. It brings together two deregulatory measures, both of which impact on Sunday trading.
	The first element of the order deals with amendments to the notification procedures currently required under the Sunday Trading Act 1994. These are matters which fall to the Department of Trade and Industry. By way of background, shop opening hours were regulated by the Shops Act 1950, which consolidated all previous legislation on Sunday trading. However, the law was considered contradictory and was widely ignored.
	Following extensive consultation and input from a wide range of interested parties, those problems were addressed in the enactment of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. The result was that, under the provisions of that Act, the opening hours of large shops, defined as those with internal floor areas of more than 280 square metres—for example, larger supermarkets and superstores—are limited to a maximum of six hours' continuous trading on a Sunday within the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Large shops are also required to give advance notice to the relevant local authority of their planned Sunday opening hours, or any change in those hours, and local authorities are required to maintain a register of those notifications and make it available for inspection by members of the public.
	It is worth mentioning that the impetus for this regulatory reform order came from the retail sector and was supported by local authorities. The retail sector suggested that the notification procedures were an unnecessary burden and should be removed by means of a regulatory reform order. Preliminary consultation with local authorities indicated that, in their view, maintaining registers of notification was an unnecessary burden and that they would prefer to focus their resources on other important issues, such as enforcement of the Act.
	Subject to approval by Parliament, this order will therefore amend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 in order to remove the burden on large shops to give advance notice—that is, 14 days' notice—of their Sunday opening hours or any change in their opening hours. It will also remove the burden on local authorities to maintain a public register of notifications. The order applies to England and Wales.
	I want to emphasise that the order will not alter the permitted range of hours nor the current maximum of six continuous hours within which a large shop is permitted to open. In addition, large shops will still be required to display their Sunday opening hours conspicuously both within and outside the relevant premises thereby allowing the local authorities to continue to enforce compliance with the Act itself.
	The second element of this RRO aims to remove the archaic and unnecessary restriction on the sale of methylated spirits on a Sunday. Noble Lords will wish to note that this matter falls within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. In short, anyone who sells methylated spirits on a Sunday is currently breaking the law and could be prosecuted for doing so.
	For background, Section 26 of the Revenue Act 1889 formed part of the control system that applied to licensed retailers of methylated spirits. It was introduced to address a problem of people purchasing and drinking methylated spirits on a day when dutiable alcoholic liquors were not readily available. These days dutiable alcoholic liquor is widely available to purchase on a Sunday.
	Subject to the approval of Parliament, this RRO will repeal Section 26 of the Revenue Act 1889 that prohibits the sale of methylated spirits on a Sunday. Section 26 applies throughout the United Kingdom. The order will repeal it for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland the repeal is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
	There has been extensive consultation on both proposals. On the opening hours proposal a large majority of respondents were in favour of the removal of notification procedures and removal of maintaining a register of notifications.
	On the proposal to remove the restriction on the sale of methylated spirits, all respondents who gave a view were in favour of the repeal of Section 26 of the Revenue Act 1889. These proposals have been closely scrutinised by respective parliamentary scrutiny committees and their responses noted.
	In your Lordships' House the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform concluded that the proposals remove burdens, within the meaning of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, and do not create any new burdens. The department also demonstrated to the satisfaction of the committee that the proposals will neither confound any reasonable expectations nor reduce any necessary protection.
	I thank members of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform for the time that they spent scrutinising the proposals and for recommending the proposals to the House.
	The committee in the other place also concluded that the proposals removed a legal burden and would not remove any necessary protections or any rights or freedoms, which a person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. The committee unanimously recommended that the order be approved. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 22 January be approved [6th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these new regulations and for the brief but clear statement by his department. This clarity is essential in view of the sensitivity of the issue of Sunday trading, and the many opponents to it.
	Noble Lords will recall the objections that were raised when the Sunday trading laws were drastically revised by the former government, and the dire predictions about the break-up of family life if people were tempted to go shopping rather than to church or to stay at home, mowing the lawn, or washing the car, or even watching the omnibus edition of "EastEnders" on the television. The trade union USDAW threatened grave industrial unrest on the part of oppressed shop workers who would be coerced into working on Sundays.
	As we now know, Sunday trading has been welcomed, as the noble Lord said, by the vast numbers of the public who vote with their feet by going shopping, often en famille, on Sundays. It is also a help to those who, because of work or other personal commitments, have limited time in which to shop. Shop staff, in turn, are pleased, without coercion, to accept the overtime or time off in lieu that they get for working on Sunday. The fact is that those who object to going shopping on Sunday are not obliged to do so.
	It is therefore only right, 10 years on from the passing of the original Act, for the Government to have reviewed how it has been working.
	The reform contained in the first proposal of the order is to remove the requirement for the owners of larger shops, who are restricted to six hours of opening on Sundays, to make an announcement to the local authority of what their opening hours will be. In turn, the local authority is currently required solemnly to record those hours.
	At present, if a store wants to change its opening hours from, say, 11 am to 5 pm to 10 am to 4 pm, it has to give 14 days' notice. The proposed alteration is to remove that registration requirement on the basis that, after 10 years, it has been found that the shops can be trusted not to cheat. The Government are removing an unnecessary—perhaps "obsolete" or "redundant" would be better words—piece of bureaucracy and the attendant costs on local councils.
	The issue of Sunday or Christmas Day trading is, so far as the Conservative Party is concerned, a matter for the conscience and religious beliefs of individual Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships' House. We shall therefore leave it to our colleagues on these Benches—I am not sure where they are tonight—to respond to this part of the draft order.
	The second proposal is to remove the restriction on the sale of methylated spirits on a Sunday. As the noble Lord indicated—he did not use quite these words—this is a relic of the Victorian era when methylated spirits were a symbol of the demon drink. Meths was the crack cocaine of its day. It was cheaper than gin, which in all conscience was cheap enough then, but gin, rum or other spirits were not available on Sundays. Meths was deliberately coloured purple, as distinct from its natural clear colour, supposedly to make it less appetising. But the so-called meths drinkers who used to abound in seedier parts of towns now unfortunately can find the stimulant or oblivion that they seek by other means and elsewhere than in hardware or chemist shops.
	According to Customs & Excise, which was responsible for collecting the licence fee for selling methylated spirits, which has long since been abolished, and for enforcing the 1899 Act which rendered illegal its sale on Sundays, no one can recall when there was last a prosecution. The rule is frequently flouted by smaller shops, whose owners were possibly unaware—I confess I was until I saw the present draft order—that there was any such prohibition. Its continued existence cannot be justified on the grounds that it removed temptation from those who might want to drink it on Sundays. All it does is inconvenience those who want to polish their windows, light barbecues or, in my case, remove those infuriating sticky labels from glass or chinaware. It is one small step on the road to removing unnecessary, redundant and obsolete regulation. But again, as it relates to an aspect of Sunday trading, it is a matter for my noble friends to decide for themselves as individuals whether or not to support it.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for the way in which she approached this discussion. She is 100 per cent correct in everything she said about the freedoms that people have to shop or, indeed, to work in a shop on a Sunday. All shopworkers in England and Wales except those who are specifically employed to work on Sundays have the right to refuse to work on Sundays and to be protected against dismissal or detriment. It is correct that those rights are contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996.
	I very much enjoyed the description by the noble Baroness of the great changes that have taken place over the years and the ways in which some things which were thought to be a very great risk have turned out not to be. As someone who does not watch the omnibus edition of "EastEnders" or even, indeed, listen to the omnibus edition of "The Archers" but certainly on occasions goes shopping on Sundays, I know the benefits.
	I share with the noble Baroness some interest in the revelation about methylated spirits and call to mind novels in which people seek out not only methylated spirits but even boot polish and other things which contain alcohol that could be extracted. I note only that progress now means that many drinks tinted purple are regarded as a fashion accoutrement. Methylated spirits plainly now only really panders to the needs of those with Primus stoves.
	I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for that. I am grateful for her contribution to this brief debate.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.